Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo GARCIA-RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 690 F. App'x 970
Docket Number: No. 16-10291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo GARCIA-RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 970–970

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo GARCIA-RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10291
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 11, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jose Alfredo Garcia-Renteria, Pro Se
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, 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
Jose Alfredo Garcia-Renteria appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 15-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), Garcia-Renteria'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 Garcia-Renteria the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Garcia-Renteria 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). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.