Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ARAIZA-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 12-50284
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ARAIZA-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ARAIZA-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50284.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
George Hardy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gordon Stewart Brownell, St. Helena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Araiza-Ortega appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(l)(A)(v)(II). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Arai-za-Ortega's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Araiza-Orte-ga the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.