Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nau Antonio RIVERA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-13
Citations: 575 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 13-10355
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nau Antonio RIVERA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 763–763

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nau Antonio RIVERA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10355.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 27, 2014.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nau Antonio Rivera-Acosta, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Nau Antonio Rivera-Acosta appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-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), Rivera-Acosta'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 Rivera-Acosta the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Rivera-Acosta 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.