Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge ROBLES-RETIZ, a.k.a. Jorge Robles, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-24
Citations: 553 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 13-10033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge ROBLES-RETIZ, a.k.a. Jorge Robles, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge ROBLES-RETIZ, a.k.a. Jorge Robles, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10033.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jorge Robles-Retiz, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, 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 Robles-Retiz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 36-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), Robles-Retiz'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 Robles-Retiz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Robles-Retiz 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.
fhis disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.