
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon MORALES-LARA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 6, 2009.
    Irene Claudia Feldman, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ramon Morales-Lara, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Ramiro S. Flores, Esq., Law Offices of Ramiro S. Flores, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Morales-Lara appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence imposed for transportation of illegal aliens for profit and placing in jeopardy the life of any person, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), and (a)(l)(B)(i), and illegal reentry after deportation 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), Morales-Lara’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable 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.

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.
     