
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe VERDIN-ALDAMA, a.k.a. Guadalupe Verdin-Aldama, a.k.a. Jose Verdin-Aldama, a.k.a. Javier Verdin-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-10028, 15-10029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2016.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Guadalupe Verdin-Aldama, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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, Jose Guadalupe Verdin-Aldama appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 18-month sentence for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and 18-month sentence imposed thereupon. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Verdin-Aldama’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 Verdin-Aldama the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Verdin-Aldama waived the right to appeal his conviction. 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 of the conviction in case number 15-10029. See id, at 988. Because Verdin-Aldama has fully served both the sentence imposed in case number 15-10029 and the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal of the sentence in case number 15-10029 and the appeal in case number 15-10028 as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 12-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999).

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.
     