Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jose L. ABREGO-RAMOS, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-22
Citations: 149 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 02-10505
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jose L. ABREGO-RAMOS, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 149
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jose L. ABREGO-RAMOS, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 02-10505.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.
Decided Sept. 22, 2005.
Michael Thomas Morrissey, Esq., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daphne Budge, Esq., Budge & McAllister, LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, 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 L. Abrego-Ramos appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Abrego-Ramos's attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), on the ground that the appeal presents no arguable issues. Abrego-Ramos has not submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
Because 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), indicates that Abrego-Ramos knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.