
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos RODRIGUEZ-ESQUEDA, a.k.a. Jose Alejandro-Esqueda, a.k.a. Jose Esqueda-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2011.
    Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas Erickson, Maynard, Cronin, Erickson, Curran & Sparks, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Marcos Rodriguez-Esqueda, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marcos Rodriguez-Esqueda appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez-Esqueda’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. 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.

Accordingly, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     