Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel CARILLO-APARICIO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carillo, a.k.a. Miguel Carillo-Aparicio, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 14-10463
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel CARILLO-APARICIO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carillo, a.k.a. Miguel Carillo-Aparicio, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel CARILLO-APARICIO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carillo, a.k.a. Miguel Carillo-Aparicio, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015,
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
Kathy Lemke,. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phpenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eric W. Kessler, Kessler Law Offices, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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 Angel Carillo-Aparicio appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, 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), Carillo-Aparicio'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 Carillo-Aparicio the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Carillo-Aparicio 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. 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 publication and is not precedent .except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.