Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar SOTO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 528 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 11-10490
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar SOTO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 528
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar SOTO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10490.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 18, 2013.
Kendra Campbell, Special Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc Victor, Esquire, Chandler, 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
Cesar Soto-Flores appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 19-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, 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), Soto-Flores'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 Soto-Flores the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Soto-Flores 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).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.