Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Jaime NUNEZ-DENIZ, a.k.a. Oscar Nunez, a.k.a. Oscar Jaime Nunez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-20
Citations: 669 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 15-10451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Jaime NUNEZ-DENIZ, a.k.a. Oscar Nunez, a.k.a. Oscar Jaime Nunez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Jaime NUNEZ-DENIZ, a.k.a. Oscar Nunez, a.k.a. Oscar Jaime Nunez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10451
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 18, 2016
Filed October 20, 2016
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX-Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Oscar Jaime Nunez-Deniz, 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
Oscar Jaime Nunez-Deniz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his 63-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following 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), Nunez-Deniz'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 Nunez-Deniz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Nunez-Deniz has waived his right to appeal his 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.