Court Opinion

ID: 220222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-07-01 22:48:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:30.757942
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 01 2011

                                                                        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. 10-10121

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00946-JAT

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
SALVADOR GUILLERMO JIMENEZ-
PIZANA, a.k.a. Roberto Jimenez-Pina,
a.k.a. Salvador Jimenez-Pizana,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

       Salvador Guillermo Jimenez-Pizana appeals from the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and the 12-month sentence imposed upon

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

          *
             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).
Jimenez-Pizana’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 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 (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                                    10-10121