
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Suzette M. ANGUAY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    Thomas Edward Stevens, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Lee Shipley, Jr., Esquire Honolulu, HI for Defendant-Appellant.
    Suzette M. Anguay, Fort Worth, TX pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes, this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Suzette M. Anguay appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Anguay’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Anguay has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

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 Anguay’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Anguay’s conviction.

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

We decline to address Anguay’s pro se challenges to the conditions of her confinement in this direct criminal appeal.

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.
     