Court Opinion

ID: 152089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-03 00:03:29+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:27.271112
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 02 2010

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 08-10499

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00377-ROS

  v.

JUAN HERNANDEZ-GUZMAN,                           MEMORANDUM *

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 19, 2010 **

Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

       Juan Hernandez-Guzman appeals from his jury-trial conviction and

132-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hernandez-

Guzman’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have considered the claims

raised by Hernandez-Guzman’s pro se supplemental brief submitted on March 29,

2010. No answering brief has been filed.

      Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (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.

                                           2                                   08-10499