Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0883-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio VALLES-BARRIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10096.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
    Dominique Juliet Park, Special Assistant U.S., Mark S. Kokanovieh, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Valles-Barrios appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 40-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valles-Barrios’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 Valles-Barrios the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Valles-Barrios has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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