22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T495,MEMORANDUM Benjapon Sakkarapope appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss with prejudice and granting the government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice an indictment charging him with four counts of failure to depart, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (a)(1)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sakka-rapope’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and a motion to take judicial notice of certain documents from the administrative record in Sakkarapope’s removal proceedings. We have provided Sakkarapope 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 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Counsel’s motions to withdraw and to take judicial notice are GRANTED. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c7,

MEMORANDUM

Benjapon Sakkarapope appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss with prejudice and granting the government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice an indictment charging him with four counts of failure to depart, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (a)(1)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sakka-rapope’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and a motion to take judicial notice of certain documents from the administrative record in Sakkarapope’s removal proceedings. We have provided Sakkarapope 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 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw and to take judicial notice are GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.