Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos CASTILLO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 456
Docket Number: Nos. 12-10192, 12-10193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos CASTILLO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos CASTILLO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 12-10192, 12-10193.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Sheila Ann Phillips, Assistant U.S., Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan Castillo-Lopez, Pecos, TX, pro se.
James Sun Park, Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Juan Carlos Castillo-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 15-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castillo-Lopez'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 Castillo-Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Castillo-Lopez has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and his right to appeal the revocation of supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. 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).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.