Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aureliano NAVARRO-AMAVIZCA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-28
Citations: 619 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 13-10402
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aureliano NAVARRO-AMAVIZCA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 606–609

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aureliano NAVARRO-AMAVIZCA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10402.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed July 28, 2015.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher LeGrande Scileppi, Law Offices of Christopher L. Scileppi, Tucson, AZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Aureliano Navarro-Amavizca Post, TX, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. 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
Aureliano Navarro-Amavizca appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(ii).. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Navarro-Amavizca's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Navarro-Amavizca has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief.
Navarro-Amavizca has waived the 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). Navarro-Amavizca contends that the district court failed to provide the advisements required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11. Because Navarro-Amavizca did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy before the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). Navarro-Amavizca has failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged Rule 11 errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. See id. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED..
DISMISSED.
LEAVY, Circuit Judge, concurring.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.- R. 36-3.