Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino CEJA-ROMERO, a.k.a. Marcelino Cejas-Romero, a.k.a. Juan Lemos Covarruvias, a.k.a. Marcelino Perales-Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 09-10484
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino CEJA-ROMERO, a.k.a. Marcelino Cejas-Romero, a.k.a. Juan Lemos Covarruvias, a.k.a. Marcelino Perales-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcelino CEJA-ROMERO, a.k.a. Marcelino Cejas-Romero, a.k.a. Juan Lemos Covarruvias, a.k.a. Marcelino Perales-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10484.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michele R. Moretti, Esquire, Law Office of Michele R. Moretti, Lake Butler, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Marcelino Ceja-Romero, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Marcelino Ceja-Romero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-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), Ceja-Romero'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 Ceja-Romero with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss 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.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.