
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto RODRIGUEZ-PORRAS, a/k/a Juan Carlos Nevarez-Garcia, a/k/a Manuel Martinez-Porras, a/k/a Miguel Mendez, a/k/a Luis Serrano, a/k/a Juan Carlos Nevarez, a/k/a Gilberto Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-1099.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2009.
    Richard A. Hosley, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert W. Pepin, Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

On December 11, 2008, Gilberto Rodriguez-Porras pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to one count of reentering the country after having been previously deported following conviction collateral es-toppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 64 months’ imprisonment, and he appealed. Finding no meritorious issues for appeal, his counsel has submitted an Anders brief and a motion for leave to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel provided Mr. Rodriguez-Porras with a copy of the brief, but Mr. Rodriguez-Porras has filed no response with this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Counsel’s Anders brief fully and accurately addresses the issues, and we agree with counsel that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the party’s request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R 32.1.
     