Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA-LEZAMA, a.k.a. Alvaro Rivera Melchor, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lezama, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lizama, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-25
Citations: 617 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 14-10550
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA-LEZAMA, a.k.a. Alvaro Rivera Melchor, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lezama, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lizama, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel RIVERA-LEZAMA, a.k.a. Alvaro Rivera Melchor, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lezama, a.k.a. Miguel Alvaro Rivera-Lizama, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10550.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
Lynnette Carleen Kimmins, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Florence Bruemmer, Law Offices of Florence M. Bruemmer, PC, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, 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
Miguel Rivera-Lezama appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for reentry after deportation, 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),
Rivera-Lezama'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 Rivera-Lezama the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Rivera-Lezama waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 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 publi- . cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.