
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven G. GREGORY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
    Kevin Thomas Maloney, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James K. Ball, Jr., Esquire, Manweiler Manweiler Breen & Ball, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Gregory's pro se request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven G. Gregory appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for bankruptcy fraud (asset concealment) and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 152(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gregory’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Gregory has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Gregory waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

We decline to review Gregory’s pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal because this is not one of the “unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Gregory’s pro se motions to expedite this appeal and for a stay of incarceration pending appeal are DENIED as moot.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     