Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MARTINEZ-GLORIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 582 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 13-10126
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MARTINEZ-GLORIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MARTINEZ-GLORIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2014.
Filed July 10, 2014.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dan W. Montgomery, Law Office of Dan Montgomery, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eduardo Martinez-Gloria, pro se.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Eduardo Martinez-Gloria appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 50-month sentence for 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), Martinez-Gloria'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 Martinez-Gloria the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Martinez-Gloria has waived his right to appeal his conviction and 50-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).
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.