
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben GUZMAN-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10468.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 6, 2009.
    Liz Barrick, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Patrick E. McGillicuddy, Esq., Law Offices of Patrick E. McGillicuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Guzman-Ramirez appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal 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), Guzman-Ramirez’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 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 district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     