
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gonzalo JUSAINO-GOMEZ, a.k.a. Jesus Gonzalo Jusaino-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-10331, 13-10332.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 28, 2015.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rafael Malanga, Malanga Law Office, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Gonzalo Jusaino-Gomez, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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, Gonzalo Jusaino-Gomez appeals his jury-trial conviction and 92-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jusaino-Gomez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Jusaino-Gomez 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. We, therefore, affirm Jusaino-Gomez’s conviction and sentence in Appeal No. 13-10332, and the revocation of supervised release and sentence in Appeal No. 13-10331.

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.
     