NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10350

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                4:19-cr-00220-DCB-LCK-1
 v.

JUAN CARLOS CANACA-RAUDALES,                    MEMORANDUM*
AKA Juan C. Canaca,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Carlos Canaca-Raudales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), Canaca-Raudales’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no


      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Canaca-Raudales the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Canaca-Raudales waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 

, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.




                                         2                                   19-10350