NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 16 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10276

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                4:17-cr-01860-CKJ-BGM-1
 v.

EMILIO URENA-VILLA,                             MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                             Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Emilio Urena-Villa appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for possession of

ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), Urena-Villa’s



      *
             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).
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Urena-Villa has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, and the government has filed a motion to dismiss.

      Urena-Villa 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 GRANT

the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See

      We decline to address on direct appeal Urena-Villa’s pro se claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 

,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.




                                           2                                    19-10276