Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0681-01.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. Julio BAYRON-ARRIOLA, a.k.a. Julio Bayron Estrada-Arriola, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-10099, No. 17-10100
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 27, 2017
    Lawrence Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Offiee of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Julio Bayron-Arriola, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDJjAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Julio Bay-ron-Arriola appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bayron-Arrio-la’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 Bayron-Arriola the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Bayron-Arriola waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeals. See id. at

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.