Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuela GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 12-10515
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuela GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuela GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10515.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, 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
Manuela Gonzalez-Gonzalez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 41-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), Gonzalez-Gonzalez'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 Gonzalez-Gonzalez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Gonzalez-Gonzalez has waived her right to appeal her 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).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.