Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin RAMIREZ-GOVEA, 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 714
Docket Number: No. 13-10272
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin RAMIREZ-GOVEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin RAMIREZ-GOVEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10272.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
Fredrick A. Cocio, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USYU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Martin Ramirez-Govea appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-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), Ramirez-Govea'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 Ramirez-Govea the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Ramirez-Govea 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.