
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Enrique JIMENEZ-SAN VINCENTE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed May 27, 2011.
    Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Alejandro Enrique Jimenez-San Vin-cente, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App: P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Enrique Jimenez-San Vin-cente appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jimenez-San Vin-cente’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 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 judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     