                                                                            FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 27 2010

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS




                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 10-10014

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00527-RCC

FERNANDO RAMON-XOLIO,
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
               Defendant - Appellant.



                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 14, 2010 **

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Fernando Ramon-Xolio appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 51-month

sentence for assault on a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and

(b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramon-Xolio’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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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.




                                          2                                    10-10014
