
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodolfo Lopez SOTO, a.k.a. Francisco Carmelo Adames-Cruz, a.k.a. Rodolfo Lopez-Soto, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10277
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2017 
    
    Filed June 02, 2017
    Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Two Renaissance Square, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, Attorney, David Eisenberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Rodolfo Lopez Soto, Pro Se
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Lopez Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 37-month sentence for re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Soto’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Soto has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     