
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos QUINONES, a.k.a. Marcos Quinones Mendoza, a.k.a. Marcos Mendoza Quinones, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50322.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Daniel H. Malvin, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S.- Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gia Kim, Esquire, Matthew Brady Larsen, Deputy Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Marcos Quinones, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    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

Marcos Quinones appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Qui-nones’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Quinones the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Quinones waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his criminal history category. 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 the voluntariness of Quinones’s plea or the criminal history category calculated by the court. We therefore affirm as to .those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).

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.
     