FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            SEP 13 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS




                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 11-10396
                                                      11-10398
                Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                 D.C. Nos. 4:11-cr-00466-DCB
  v.                                                       4:11-cr-50058-DCB

FRANCISCO GUZMAN-PEREZ,                          MEMORANDUM *

                Defendant - Appellant.



                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                     James M. Moody, District Judge, Presiding **

                           Submitted September 10, 2012 ***

Before:         WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       In these consolidated appeals, Francisco Guzman-Perez appeals from the

24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after


          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

          **
             The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and the 12-month sentence imposed

upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

 (1967), Guzman-Perez’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 Guzman-Perez with 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, 

, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waivers. See United States v. Nguyen, 

, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      In case numbers 11-10396 and 11-10398, the appeals are DISMISSED.




                                         2                          11-10396 & 11-10398