                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         FEB 25 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10230

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00085-NVW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MARGARITO CENISEROS ROSALES,
a.k.a. Margaro Rosales Cenisero,

               Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                      Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Margarito Ceniseros Rosales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry of a

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


          *
             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).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ceniseros Rosales’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 Ceniseros Rosales the opportunity to file a pro se

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

filed.

         Ceniseros Rosales waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

         DISMISSED.




                                           2                                   14-10230
