
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauro PRECIADO-PRECIADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50492.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
    Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, 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

Mauro Preciado-Preciado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for attempted entry after 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), Preciado-Preciado’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 Preciado-Preciado the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Preciado-Preciado waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal challenging the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. He also waived the right to appeal 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 the district court’s order denying Preciado-Preeiado’s motion to dismiss. We therefore affirm as to that issue. 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.
     