
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo HERNANDEZ-SOTO, aka Arturo Soto-Hernandez, Arturo Rosas-Hernandez, Jose Candelario Soto-Corona, Jose Soto-Corona, Jose Candelario Soto, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-10081.
    D.C. No. CR-01-00333-RCC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
    Christina M. Cabanillas, Julia Soto, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Francisco Leon, Esq., Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Hernandez-Soto appeals his 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following 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), Hernandez-Soto’s counsel has filed a brief, stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     