
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2013.
    Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Walter K. Pyle, Berkeley, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jose Jimenez, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jimenez’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 Jimenez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Jimenez has waived his right to appeal his sentence. 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. See id. at 988.

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.
     