NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 29 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    20-10123

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00555-MTL-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SESAR ASUNCION COVARRUBIAS-
ARELLANO, AKA Sesar Covarrubias,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before:      McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Sesar Asuncion Covarrubias-Arellano appeals from the district court’s

judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and time-served sentence, to be

followed by 36 months of supervised release, for reentry of a removed alien, in

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

      *
             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).
(1967), Covarrubias-Arellano’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The

court did not provide Covarrubias-Arellano an opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief because he was removed from the United States on March 26,

2020, and the parties were unable to provide a mailing address for him. No

answering brief has been filed.

      Covarrubias-Arellano 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                                   20-10123