Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Ivan BARRON-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 470 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 11-10040
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Ivan BARRON-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Ivan BARRON-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Monte Cress Clausen, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas E. Higgins, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, for DefendanL-Appellant.
Jesus Ivan Barron-Garcia, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, 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
Jesus Ivan Barron-Garcia appeals from his 51-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Barron-Garcia's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.