
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio CASTRO-GUZMAN, a.k.a. Anthony Castro, Jr., a.k.a. Anthony Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    Donald F. Gaffney, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Antonio Castro-Guzman, Manchester, KY, pro se.
    Brianna J. Fuller, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Castro-Guzman appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and the 12-month and one-day sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castro-Guzman’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Castro-Guzman 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.

We are in receipt of Castro-Guzman’s letter dated January 10, 2012. To the extent he wishes to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address it on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     