Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ESTRADA-RAMOS, a.k.a. Juan Ramos Estrada, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-23
Citations: 466 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 09-10232
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ESTRADA-RAMOS, a.k.a. Juan Ramos Estrada, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 663–663

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan ESTRADA-RAMOS, a.k.a. Juan Ramos Estrada, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10232.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 23, 2012.
John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marc Victor, Esquire, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Juan Estrada-Ramos appeals from the 20-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry 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), Estrada-Ramos's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant 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.