
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus ESPINOZA-TEJADA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Espinoza-Tejada, a.k.a. Maria Delgada, a.k.a. Mario Israel Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 12-10654, 12-10655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 31, 2014.
    
    Decided April 18, 2014.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas E. Higgins, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins Jr., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      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

In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Espinoza-Tejada appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826, and also appeals from the revocation of supervised release and consecutive six-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza-Tejada’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 Espinoza-Tejada the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Espinoza-Tejada has waived his right to appeal his reentry-after-deportation conviction and 60-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Appeal No. 12-10654. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

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 grounds for relief with respect to the revocation of supervised release or the sentence imposed upon revocation. We therefore affirm the judgment challenged in Appeal No. 12-10655.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Appeal No. 12-10654 DISMISSED; Appeal No. 12-10655 AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     