
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Aguilar VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-30054
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Steven Toshio Masada, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Enrique Aguilar Valencia, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Aguilar Valencia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 144-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), and 846; and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and (h). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Aguilar Valencia’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 construe the letter submitted by Aguilar Valencia on December 15, 2017, as a pro se supplemental brief.

Aguilar Valencia waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988

To the extent that Aguilar Valencia seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     