Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Flores ROJAS, a.k.a, Alejandro Flores-Rojas, a.k.a. Alejandro Rojas Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 699 F. App'x 736
Docket Number: Nos. 16-10472, 16-10473
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Flores ROJAS, a.k.a, Alejandro Flores-Rojas, a.k.a. Alejandro Rojas Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Flores ROJAS, a.k.a, Alejandro Flores-Rojas, a.k.a. Alejandro Rojas Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-10472, 16-10473
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 27, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Alejandro Flores Rojas, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Alejandro Flores Rojas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Flores Rojas'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 Flores Rojas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Flores Rojas waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 these appeals. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.