Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Maximiliano REYES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-07
Citations: 442 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 08-10430
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Maximiliano REYES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos Maximiliano REYES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10430.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 7, 2011.
Claire Lefkowitz, Esquire, Christina Marie Cabanillas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Taylor Shannon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Santos Maximiliano Reyes-Gutierrez appeals from the 56-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry 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), Reyes-Gutierrez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
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.