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:T518,MEMORANDUM Alexis Chavez-Arujas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chavez-Arujas’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief 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. . We decline to review Chavez-Arujas’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review on direct appeal. See United States v. Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.2003).24:T54a,

MEMORANDUM

Alexis Chavez-Arujas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Chavez-Arujas’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief 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. . We decline to review Chavez-Arujas’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review on direct appeal. See United States v. Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.2003).