Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonardo RODRIGUEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-19
Citations: 472 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 11-10379
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonardo RODRIGUEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonardo RODRIGUEZ-VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 19, 2012.
Jeffrey Daniel Martino, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nathan Donlon Leonardo, Leonardo Law Offices, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Leonardo Rodriguez-Valdez, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Leonardo Rodriguez-Valdez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 21-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), Rodriguez-Valdez's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
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.