
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eliseo GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10331.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 3, 2011.
    
      Heiko P. Coppola, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph J. Wiseman, Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph J. Wiseman, Davis, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Elíseo Gomez, Butner, NC, pro se.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elíseo Gomez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 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), Gomez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Gomez contends that the district court erroneously assessed two criminal history points based on a prior felony conviction.

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.
     