Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fortunado HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, aka Fortunato Hernandez-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 271 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 06-10022
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fortunado HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, aka Fortunato Hernandez-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 627–627

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fortunado HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, aka Fortunato Hernandez-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10022.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 25, 2008.
Claire Kiehl Lefkowitz, Esq., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas Scott Hartzell, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fortunado Hernandez-Rodriguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence imposed for illegal 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), Hernandez-Rodriguez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (appeal waiver valid when entered into knowingly and voluntarily).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.