FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            SEP 25 2015
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10550

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01598-CKJ

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL RIVERA-LEZAMA, a.k.a.
Alvaro Rivera Melchor, a.k.a. Miguel
Alvaro Rivera-Lezama, a.k.a. Miguel
Alvaro Rivera-Lizama,

               Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 21, 2015**

Before:        REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

      Miguel Rivera-Lezama appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges 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


          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 738 (1967), Rivera-Lezama’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 Rivera-Lezama the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Rivera-Lezama 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                                   14-10550