
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elvis AYON-PLACENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Priya Sopori, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sheri Pym, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elvis Ayon-Placencia, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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

Elvis Ayon-Placencia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for illegal reentry by an alien following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ayon-Placencia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Ayon-Placencia waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence with the exception of the court’s calculation of his criminal history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Pen-son v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that the appeal waiver is operative. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

With regard to the court’s calculation of the criminal history category, our independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal, and we affirm.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with instructions to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     