
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Anthony SCHWARTZ, a.k.a. Victor Anthony Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30078.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 29, 2015.
    
    Filed May 4, 2015.
    Tara Elliott, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Federal Correctional Institution, Lom-poc, CA, Victor Anthony Lopez, John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Victor Anthony Schwartz, pro se.
    
      Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Anthony Schwartz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Schwartz’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 Schwartz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

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 Schwartz’s conviction. We accordingly affirm his conviction.

Schwartz has waived his right to appeal his 120-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal 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.

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.
     