                                                                           FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            SEP 20 2012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,                        No. 11-10445

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01102-RCC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ARMANDO PORRAS-CORDERO,

                Defendant - Appellant.



                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                    Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief Judge, Presiding **

                           Submitted September 10, 2012 ***

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

       Armando Porras-Cordero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

64-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.



          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
              The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief Judge of the United
States District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
          ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Porras-Cordero’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 Porras-Cordero 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, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.




                                           2                                        11-10445
