Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PINEDA-PICASSO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-24
Citations: 411 F. App'x 953
Docket Number: No. 10-10145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PINEDA-PICASSO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 953–953

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PINEDA-PICASSO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10145.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn T. Hamilton, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jesus Pineda-Picasso appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for reentry of 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), Pineda-Picasso'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 the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Pineda-Picasso has submitted a supplemental brief, but no 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 the appeal of the conviction 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.
The appeal of the conviction is DISMISSED, and the sentence is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.