Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo PLAZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 06-10364
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo PLAZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo PLAZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 10, 2008.
Lisa Jennis Settel, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Alex Gonzalez, Gonzalez & Smith PC, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodrigo Plaza-Franco appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence for bringing in illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Plaza-Franco's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, which we construe as a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Plaza-Franco has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and to vacate the briefing schedule.
We have conducted an 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). We dismiss the appeal 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.
The government's motion to dismiss and to vacate the briefing schedule is denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.