
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronaldo Adolfo MENDEZ-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Gutierrez, a.k.a. Felipe Lopez, a.k.a. Phillip S. Lopez, a.k.a. Ronald Adolfo Mendez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10306.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 18, 2011.
    Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alex D. Gonzalez, Esquire, Gonzalez & Smith PC, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronaldo Adolfo Mendez-Martinez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and the 52-month sentence for illegal re-entry 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), Mendez-Martinez’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.

In light of this court’s recent decision in Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, 645 F.3d 1129, 2011 WL 2465462 (9th Cir. June 22, 2011), we remand to the district court so that, using judicially noticeable documents, the district court can apply a modified categorical approach in determining whether Mendez^-Martinez was necessarily convicted of or pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking offense with respect to his conviction under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990).

The motion of Alex D. Gonzalez, 2300 W. Ray Road, Suite 1, Chandler, AZ 85224, to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. The district court is instructed to appoint new counsel.

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