
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rigoberto LOPEZ-ROQUE, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 10-10419, 10-10420.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 9, 2012.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brick P. Storts, III, Esquire, Barton & Storts, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Rigoberto Lopez-Roque, Milan, NM, pro se.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Rigoberto Lopez-Roque appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a six-month consecutive sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez-Roque’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. Lopez-Roque has filed a supplemental brief A supplemental answering brief has not 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.

In light of the foregoing, Lopez-Roque’s “motion for direct notification by court to appellant” and the government’s motion for summary affirmance are DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     