
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elvin Noe CRUZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10672.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
    Monte Cress Clausen, 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.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elvin Noe Cruz-Medina appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for reentry after 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), Cruz-Medina’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 Cruz-Medina 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.

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