Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Osmin QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-25
Citations: 694 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 16-50255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Osmin QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Osmin QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50255
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2017
Filed July 25, 2017
Matthew Craig Brehm, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Edgar Osmin Quintanilla, Pro Se
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Edgar Oscar Quintanilla appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the sentence of 37 months in prison 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), Quintanilla'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 Quintanilla the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Quintanilla has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
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.