Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CRUZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Perez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 633 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 15-10250
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CRUZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Perez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CRUZ-ROBLES, a.k.a. Jose Perez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10250.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 21, 2016.
Robert A. Bork, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd M. Leventhal, Esquire, Special Counsel, Leventhal and Associates PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Cesar Cruz-Robles appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Cruz-Robles's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Cruz-Robles has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.
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.