Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicito CLEMENTE-CANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 478 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 11-10240
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicito CLEMENTE-CANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 483–483

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicito CLEMENTE-CANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10240.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Felicito Clemente-Cano, 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
Felicito Clemente-Cano appeals his conviction by guilty plea and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, with a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clemente-Cano's attorney has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 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.