Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CARRENO-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 17-10035
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CARRENO-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon CARRENO-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 19, 2018
Krissa Marie Lanham, DOJ-USAO, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Ramon Carreno-Ochoa, Pro Se
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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
Ramon Carreno-Ochoa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for assault of a federal officer resulting in bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b), 1114. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carre-no-Ochoa's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Carreno-Ochoa has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Carreno-Ochoa waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 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.
We decline to address on direct appeal Carreno-Ochoa's pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.