
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Braulio RIVERA-ANDRACA, a.k.a. Jorge Perez-Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Nancy Hinchcliffe, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Braulio Rivera-Andraca, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, 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

Braulio Rivera-Andraca appeals form the 22-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rivera-Andraca’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.

Accordingly, 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.
     