
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Verden WILLIAMS, Jr., a.k.a. David Verden Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Thomas J. Brady, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrew T. Park, Honolulu, HI, for De-fendanh-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Verden Williams, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Williams has submitted a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appellate waiver in the parties’ plea agreement.

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 Williams’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Williams’s conviction.

Williams has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Williams’s app.eal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

All other pending motions are DENIED.

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.
     