
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo SANDOVAL-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50552.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 23, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Cathy J. Ostiller, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Brady Larsen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, 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

Alfredo Sandoval-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sandoval-Sanchez’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 Sandoval-Sanchez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Sandoval-Sanchez 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 the voluntariness of Sandoval-Sanchez’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the sentencing appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers. 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.
     