Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Lopez SOTO, a.k.a. Francisco Carmelo Adames-Cruz, a.k.a. Rodolfo Lopez-Soto, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-02
Citations: 692 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 16-10277
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Lopez SOTO, a.k.a. Francisco Carmelo Adames-Cruz, a.k.a. Rodolfo Lopez-Soto, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Lopez SOTO, a.k.a. Francisco Carmelo Adames-Cruz, a.k.a. Rodolfo Lopez-Soto, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10277
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 31, 2017
Filed June 02, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Two Renaissance Square, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, Attorney, David Eisenberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Rodolfo Lopez Soto, Pro Se
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Rodolfo Lopez Soto appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his 37-month sentence for re-entry 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), Soto's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Soto has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
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.