
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Milagros MATEO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-30314.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Decided Sept. 15, 2006.
    Thomas C. Bradley, Esq., USAK — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joe P. Josephson, Esq., Josephson and Associates, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Milagros Mateo appeals from her guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Mateo has filed a brief stating that he finds no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179,1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when entered into knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     