
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe VARGAS-FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 18, 2015.
    Mia A. Giacomazzi, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eric V. Kersten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Avenal, CA, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
    Jose Guadalupe Vargas-Frias, Fresno, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Guadalupe Vargas-Frias appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 58-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, 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), Vargas-Frias’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Vargas-Frias has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief, the government has filed an answering brief, and Vargas-Frias has filed a pro se reply brief.

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 on direct appeal. We decline to consider Vargas-Frias’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim, and Vargas-Frias’s legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny his right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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