
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro VALDEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50014.
    D.C. No. CR-04-00079-SJO-01.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
    
    Decided Nov. 18, 2005.
    Becky S. Walker, Elyssa Getreu, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Pedro Valdez-Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Before WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Valdez-Lopez appeals his 21-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to assault of a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)(b).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Valdez-Lopez has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Valdez-Lopez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has not filed an answering brief.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Valdez-Lopez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily); see also United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting 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.
     