                                                                            FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 29 2012

                                                                        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. 11-10081

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01329-GMS-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ROSENDO RODRIGUEZ-ZETINA,

               Defendant - Appellant.



                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Rosendo Rodriguez-Zetina appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-

month sentence for being found in the United States after removal, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Rodriguez-Zetina’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

          *
             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).
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 (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                                     11-10081
