Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge PENA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-29
Citations: 591 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 14-10155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge PENA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge PENA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
Filed Jan. 29, 2015.
Joseph Alioto, Jr., Assistant U.S., USPX-Office' of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Florence Bruemmer, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. 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
Jorge Pena-Rodriguez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-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); Pena-Rodriguez's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Pena-Rodriguez has filed a pro . se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Pena-Rodriguez has waived his right to appeal his 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). 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.