NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10257 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00288-ROS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ALEJANDRO CASTILLO PADILLA, AKA Alejandro Castillo-Padilla, AKA Alejandro Castro Padilla, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Castillo Padilla appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Padilla’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Padilla has filed a letter, which we treat as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Padilla’s pro se argument that he believed he “had a plea for 13 months,” and was unaware that he could be sentenced to 24 months, is belied by the record.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-10257