
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Patrick SCHRAMMECK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30171
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Tara Elliott, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Katherine Ruth Stack, Stack & Kottke, PLLC, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Sean Patrick Schrammeck, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, 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

Sean Patrick Schrammeck appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month-and-one-day sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ -841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Schrammeck’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 considered Schrammeck’s pro se supplemental brief, which the Clerk is instructed to file. No 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 Schrammeck’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Schrammeck’s conviction.

Schrammeck waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Schram-meck’s appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 682 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

In his pro se supplemental brief, Schrammeck contends that his trial coun-: sel provided ineffective assistance. Schrammeck’s claim, which is based on an alleged conflict of interest arising out of trial counsel’s bar membership, is merit-less.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Schrammeck’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel and to stay these proceedings pending appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     