Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias Moises SANTIAGO-SAMAYOA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 07-10371
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias Moises SANTIAGO-SAMAYOA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 311–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias Moises SANTIAGO-SAMAYOA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10371.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
John R. Lopez, IV, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elias Moisés Santiago-Samayoa, California City, CA, pro se.
Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Elias Moisés Santiago-Samayoa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), (a)(1)(A)(v). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Santiago-Samayoa'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 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, 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.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.