
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe Raul MARTINEZ-LABORIN, a.k.a. Raul Martinez-Laborin, a.k.a. Raul Noe Martinez-Laborin, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10183
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Noe Raul Martinez-Laborin, Pro Se
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noe Raul Martinez-Laborin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for reentry 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), Martinez-Laborin’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Martinez-Laborin has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Martinez-Laborin 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). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

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.
     