Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-HEREDIA, a.k.a. Arm Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Heredia Ernesto Castillo, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia, a.k.a. Armando E.A. Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera-Abogado, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: No. 10-30058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-HEREDIA, a.k.a. Arm Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Heredia Ernesto Castillo, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia, a.k.a. Armando E.A. Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera-Abogado, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-HEREDIA, a.k.a. Arm Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Heredia Ernesto Castillo, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia, a.k.a. Armando E.A. Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera-Abogado, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30058.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Alan G. Burrow, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Monte J. Stiles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
J.D. Merris, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Ernesto Castillo-Heredia, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Ernesto Castillo-Heredia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 78-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castillo-Heredia'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 have 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 except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.