Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo AYALA-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Jose Martinez Ayala, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 06-10674
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo AYALA-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Jose Martinez Ayala, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo AYALA-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Jose Martinez Ayala, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10674.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 19, 2007.
Monte C. Clausen, AUSA, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darla J. Mondou, Esq., Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Alfredo Ayala-Martinez appeals from his conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ayala-Martinez's counsel has filed a brief stating that she finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal. Because Ayala-Martinez waived his right to appeal the conviction and the sentence imposed, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw, and we DISMISS the appeal.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.