Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexis CHAVEZ-ARUJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 11-10153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alexis CHAVEZ-ARUJAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 646–646

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alexis CHAVEZ-ARUJAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-10153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 19, 2012.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rubin Salter, Jr., Esquire, Law Office of Rubin Salter, Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Alexis Chavez-Arujas, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, 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
Alexis Chavez-Arujas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been previously removed, 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), Chavez-Arujas'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.
. We decline to review Chavez-Arujas's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review on direct appeal. See United States v. Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.2003).