Opinion
No. 07-10232.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 6, 2008.
Jerry R. Albert, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Myrna Rodriguez Beards, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-03-00063-FRZ.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Luis Enrique Gonzalez appeals from the district court's determination, upon remand, that there was not a complete breakdown in communication between Gonzalez and trial counsel which prevented the presentation of an adequate defense at trial. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez'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 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 Pemon 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 determination is AFFIRMED.