
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Alvin WICK, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Alvin Wick, Jr., Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Leo Sanford Selvey, II, Selvey Law Firm, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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

William Alvin Wick, Jr., appeals his guilty-plea conviction and the 360-month sentence imposed for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Wick’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Wick has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to the defendant’s conviction. We dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

We decline to address Wick’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal of the sentence is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     