
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel PEREZ-SANTIAGO, a.k.a. Israel Garcia, a.k.a. Isreal Perez-Santiago, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-10535, 13-10536.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2014.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, United States District Court, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Israel Perez-Santiago, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Israel Perez-Santiago appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; and from the revocation of supervised release and concurrent four-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Perez-Santiago’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 Perez-Santiago the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Perez-Santiago has 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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). Accordingly, we dismiss Appeal No. 13-10536. See id. at 988.

Because Perez-Santiago has fully served the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we dismiss Appeal No. 13-10535 as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw GRANTED. is

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     