Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago YANEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: Nos. 09-10497, 09-10498
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago YANEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago YANEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-10497, 09-10498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rosemary Marquez, Esquire, Marquez Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Santiago Yanez-Martinez, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Santiago Yanez-Martinez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the revocation of his supervised release and the 9-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Yanez-Martinez'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 with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
With respect to both cases, we dismiss the appeals in light of the valid appeal waivers. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeals are DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.