Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Adan SOTO-ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-27
Citations: 397 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 09-10449
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Adan SOTO-ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Adan SOTO-ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10449.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
Joseph W. Hanley, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Saul M. Huerta, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Leonel Soto-Ontiveros appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 12-month sentence imposed for illegal re-entry 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), Soto-Ontiveros' 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 the appellant with 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, 80-81, 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.