Case ID: f-appx_554/html/0578-01.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. Carlos NARANJO-YANEZ, a.k.a. Carlos Yanez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10523.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 30, 2014.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
    John Howard Messing, Messing Law Offices, PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Naranjo-Yanez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence of 13 months and one day 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), Naranjo-Yanez’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 Nar-anjo-Yanez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Naranjo-Yanez has waived his right to appeal his conviction. 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). Naranjo-Yanez’s appeal is moot with respect to his sentence because he has completed his custodial sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release. See United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999). We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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