Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-ACOSTA, a.k.a. Jose Luis Acosta, a.k.a. Jose Luis LopezArellanes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-25
Citations: 632 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: Nos. 15-10014, 15-10015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-ACOSTA, a.k.a. Jose Luis Acosta, a.k.a. Jose Luis Lopez-Arellanes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-ACOSTA, a.k.a. Jose Luis Acosta, a.k.a. Jose Luis Lopez-Arellanes, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 15-10014, 15-10015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 25, 2016.
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose Luis Lopez-Arellanes, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Scott Michael Bennett, Esquire, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Jose Luis Lopez-Acosta appeals his guilty-plea con viction and 70-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and concurrent 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation, Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez-Acosta'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 Lopez-Acosta the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Lopez-Acosta waived the right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 these appeals. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.