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:T444,MEMORANDUM ** Jesus Herrero-Tepole appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for being found in the United States *827 after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony, 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), Herrero-Tepole’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and, in light of the appeal waiver, the appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.2000). This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T45f,

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Herrero-Tepole appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for being found in the United States *827 after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony, 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), Herrero-Tepole’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and, in light of the appeal waiver, the appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.2000).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.