22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ef,MEMORANDUM In these consolidated appeals, Julio Bay-ron-Arriola appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bayron-Arrio-la’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 Bayron-Arriola the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Bayron-Arriola waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeals. See id. at 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 36-3.24:T521,

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Julio Bay-ron-Arriola appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and the revocation of supervised release and consecutive 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bayron-Arrio-la’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 Bayron-Arriola the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Bayron-Arriola waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. 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 waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeals. See id. at

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.