Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Maria AMAYA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-19
Citations: 483 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 11-10407
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Maria AMAYA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Maria AMAYA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10407.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 19, 2012.
Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nancy Hincheliffe, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Manuel Maria Amaya-Rios, Atlanta, GA, pro se.
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
Manuel Maria Amaya-Rios appeals from the 83-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 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), Amaya-Rios's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Amaya-Rios 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, 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.