Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isauro MORAN-GUILLERMO, a.k.a. Isauro Moran-Guilermo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 582 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 13-10512
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isauro MORAN-GUILLERMO, a.k.a. Isauro Moran-Guilermo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isauro MORAN-GUILLERMO, a.k.a. Isauro Moran-Guilermo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10512.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2014.
Filed July 10, 2014.
Gordon Davenport, III, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry L. Jacobs, Law Offices of Henry Jacobs, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Isauro Moran-Guillermo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-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), Moran-Guillermo'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 Moran-Guillermo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Moran-Guillermo has waived his right to appeal his reentry of a removed alien conviction and 46-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
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.