Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ESCONTRIAS-RASCON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-20
Citations: 479 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 11-10503
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ESCONTRIAS-RASCON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ESCONTRIAS-RASCON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10503.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
Jeffrey Daniel Martino, Assistant U.S., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Bresnehan, Esquire, Michael J. Bresnehan PC, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, 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
Miguel Escontrias-Rascon appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 18-month sentence for reentry after deportation, 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), Escont-rias-Rascon's counsel has filed a brief stat ing there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw , as counsel of record. We have provided Escontrias-Rascon the opportunity to ñle 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, 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.