
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo SAMANIEGO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-10615.
    D.C. No. CR-02-00914-ROS.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 3, 2003.
    Michael Thomas Morrissey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John W. Rood, Attorney at Law, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Rodolfo Samaniego-Nunez, California City, CA, pro se.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Samaniego-Nunez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry following 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), counsel for Samaniego-Nunez has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Samaniego-Nunez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issues requiring further review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     