
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Rigoberto ARAUJO-VARGAS, a.k.a. Marvin R. Araujo, a.k.a. Wilson Armando Murillo Garcia, a.k.a. Wilson Murillo, a.k.a. Wilson Armando Garcia Murillo, a.k.a. Marvin Rigoberto Vargas, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Files Jan. 28, 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.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marvin Rigoberto Araujo-Vargas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 63-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), Araujo-Vargas’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 Araujo-Vargas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Araujo-Vargas 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 Araujo-Vargas’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, 988 (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.
     