
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan REYES-CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30263.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., John C. Odell, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Miriam F. Schwartz, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Reyes-Castaneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 29-month and 1-week sentence for two counts of unlawful entry by eluding examination and inspection by immigration officers, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Reyes-Castaneda’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 Reyes-Castaneda the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

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 as to Reyes-Castaneda’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Reyes-Castaneda’s conviction.

Because Reyes-Castaneda completed his sentence during the pendency of this appeal, we dismiss Reyes-Castaneda’s challenge to his sentence as moot. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir.2004).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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