
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo CORRAL, a.k.a. Eduardo Flores Corral, a.k.a. Eduardo Mendoza Corral, a.k.a. Edwardo Corral, a.k.a. Huero, a.k.a. Eduardo Corral Mendoza, a.k.a. Edward Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50395.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Michael Dore, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, United States Attorney Office, Los Ange-les, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Eduardo Corral, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Brianna J. Fuller, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Corral appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 135-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and transfer of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o )(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Corral’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Corral filed a pro se brief and the government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Corral 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 five specified issues related to his 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 grounds for relief as to Corral’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. 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, 988 (9th Cir.2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part.

Corral’s pro se motion to dismiss the government’s August 7, 2012, reply brief is DENIED.

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.
     