
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo Cesar YAXON-SICAJAU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Cesar Yaxon-Sicajau appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Yax-on-Sicajau’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 Yaxon-Sica-jau the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Yaxon-Sicajau waived the right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. 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 Yaxon-Sieajau’s plea or any aspects of the sentence not covered by the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (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.
     