FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 10 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 13-10291
                                                      13-10292
                Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                 D.C. Nos. 2:12-cr-01668-JAT
  v.                                                       2:13-cr-50014-JAT

JESUS SANTIAGO SOSA-ORTIZ, a.k.a.
Jesus Sosa-Ortiz,                                MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant - Appellant.


                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                     Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding**

                              Submitted June 25, 2014***

Before:         HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

       In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Santiago Sosa-Ortiz appeals from the

district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 72-month

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the

revocation of supervised release and 8-month concurrent sentences imposed

thereupon. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), Sosa-Ortiz’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 Sosa-Ortiz 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, 

, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal in case

number 13-10291. The appeal in case number 13-10292 is moot. See Spencer v.

Kemna, 

, 12-14 (1998).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      In case number 13-10291, the judgment is AFFIRMED; in case number

13-10292, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.




                                           2                           13-10291 & 13-10292