
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everardo Olais ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30282.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2014.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., J. Tate London, Assistant U.S., Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Everardo Oláis Rocha, pro se.
    Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Everardo Oláis Rocha appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rocha’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 Rocha 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 Rocha’s conviction. We accordingly affirm the conviction.

Rocha waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss Rocha’s appeal as to his sentence. 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.
     