NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10013

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:18-cr-01280-JJT-1

 v.

PABLO ELIAS RAMOS-ABARCA, AKA                   MEMORANDUM*
Carlos Humberto Gonzales-Guzman,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                     John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Pablo Elias Ramos-Abarca appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry of a

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

(1967), Ramos-Abarca’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there


      *
             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).
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Ramos-Abarca the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Ramos-Abarca 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                                   19-10013