
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MYEONG HOH KIM, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10585.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 17, 2015.
    
    Filed June 1, 2015.
    Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USH-Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cynthia Ann Kagiwada, Kaneohe, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Myeong Hoh Kim appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 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), Kim’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 Kim the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental 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. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Kim’s conviction. We accordingly affirm his conviction.

Kim has waived his right to appeal his 168-month sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).

Kim requests that his case be remanded to the district court so that the district court may consider a reduction in his sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The proper procedure for obtaining a reduction in a sentence on those grounds is through a motion in district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We express no opinion regarding the merits of such a'motion.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel from the appellate proceedings 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. ■
     