Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Saul ALVARADO, a.k.a. Daniel Pineda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 10-10479
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario Saul ALVARADO, a.k.a. Daniel Pineda, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario Saul ALVARADO, a.k.a. Daniel Pineda, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-10479.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adrian Paulino Fontes, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Mario Saul Alvarado, Herlong, CA, pro se.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Mario Saul Alvarado appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a 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), Alvarado'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 Alvarado 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.