Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Guadalupe LOPEZ-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 579 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 13-10493
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Guadalupe LOPEZ-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Guadalupe LOPEZ-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 18, 2014.
Rachel Marie Reames, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office Of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Erickson, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jesus Guadalupe Lopez-Nunez, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, 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
Jesus Guadalupe Lopez-Nunez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 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), Lopez-Nunez'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 Lopez-Nunez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Lopez-Nunez has waived his right to appeal his 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.