Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe IBARRA-CALOCA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-18
Citations: 263 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 07-10139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe IBARRA-CALOCA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 263
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe IBARRA-CALOCA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10139.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 18, 2008.
Clame Kiehl Lefkowitz, Esq., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deeoneini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Felipe Ibarra-Caloca, Fcit—Federal Correctional Institution, Francisco Leon, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Ibarra-Caloca appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for illegal reentry 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), Ibarra-Caloca'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 Ibarra-Caloca the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We affirm the conviction, and dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver, see United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Conviction AFFIRMED; Appeal of sentence DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.