
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene MARTINEZ-ENCINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10282.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jack L. Lansdale, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Jack L. Landsdale, Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Rene Martinez-Encinas, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rene Martinez-Encinas appeals from the judgment revoking supervised release and the 46-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Martinez-Encinas’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Martinez-Encinas has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has not filed an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 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.

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is DENIED.

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