
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel MONTES-LLANES, a.k.a. Samuel Montes-Yanez, a.k.a. Samuel Montez-Yanez, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-10007.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 29, 2011.
    Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Arthur J. Hutton, Law Office of Arthur J. Hutton, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Samuel Montes-Llanes, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samuel Montes-Llanes appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry after deportation, 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), Montes-Llanes’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 Montes-Llanes the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Montes-Llanes has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and no answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The record belies Montes-Llanes’s contention that his plea was involuntary because he did not understand the plea proceedings and did not sign the plea agreement. We decline to address Montes-Llanes’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”). We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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