Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virjinio REYNOSO-GARCIA, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynosa-Garcia, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynoso, a.k.a. Virginio Reynoso-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 14-10015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virjinio REYNOSO-GARCIA, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynosa-Garcia, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynoso, a.k.a. Virginio Reynoso-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virjinio REYNOSO-GARCIA, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynosa-Garcia, a.k.a. Virjinio Reynoso, a.k.a. Virginio Reynoso-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
Ann L. Dentarais, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Kathleen Genevieve Williamson, Esquire Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Virjinio Reynoso-Garcia, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, 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
Virjinio Reynoso-Garcia appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 18-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), Reynoso-Garcia's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for re lief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Rey-noso-Gareia the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supple-. mental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Reynoso-Garcia has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 846, 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 publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.