
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juvenal SANCHEZ-ISLAS, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Andrade-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30151.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Catherine Lynskey Crisham, Assistant U.S., Roger Scott Rogoff, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark D. Mestel, Law Office of Mark D. Mestel, Inc. P.S., Everett, WA, pro se.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, 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

Juvenal Sanchez-Islas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sanchez-Islas’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sanchez-Islas has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief. The government has not filed an answering brief. 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 Sanchez-Islas’s conviction. We accordingly affirm his conviction.

Sanchez-Islas waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Sanchez-Islas’s appeal of his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).

We decline to address Sanchez-Islas’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003).

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.
     