Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CHAVEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 582 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 13-10038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CHAVEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CHAVEZ-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10038.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed July 10, 2014.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn T. Hamilton, Esquire, Hamilton Law Office, PC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Roberto Chavez-Valencia, Folkston, GA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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
Roberto Chavez-Valencia appeals from the district court's judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 4-month sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chavez-Valencia'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 Chavez-Valencia the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Chavez-Valencia has waived his right to appeal the revocation of supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. 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.