
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro TINOCO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 29, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Ryan Weinstein, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Tinoco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Tinoco’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 Tinoco the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Tinoco waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Tinoco also waived the right to appeal five specified issues related to 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 grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Tinoco’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     