
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Nelson AYALA-RAMOS, a.k.a. Jose, a.k.a. Nelson Fernando Ramos-Ayala, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, David Michael Her-zog, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando Nelson Ayala-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ayala-Ramos’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 Ayala-Ramos the opportunity to file a pro se supplement tal 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. 76, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Ayala-Ramos’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Ayala-Ramos’s conviction.

Ayala-Ramos waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Ayala-Ramos’s 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.
     