
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Fernando BARAJAS-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Law Office of Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angel Fernando Barajas-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Barajas-Aguilar’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 Ba-rajas-Aguilar the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Barajas-Aguilar waived his right to appeal his conviction. 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 validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We accordingly dismiss Barajas-Aguilar’s appeal of his conviction. See id. at 988.

Barajas-Aguilar also waived the right to appeal his sentence. However, we decline to enforce the sentencing appeal waiver because the district court failed to discuss it, or to confirm that Barajas-Aguilar understood its terms, at the change of plea hearing. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(N); United States v. Arellano-Gallegos, 387 F.3d 794, 796-97 (9th Cir.2004). Because we find no arguable issues as to Barajas-Aguilar’s sentence, we affirm his sentence.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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