
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron Geovany PAYES-CHINCHILLA, a.k.a. Rene Aguirre, a.k.a. Juan Gatica, a.k.a. Byron Payes, a.k.a. Geovany Payes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50524
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 19, 2016
    Christopher Copeland Kendall, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA.
    Seema Ahmad, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Byron Geovany Payes-Chinchilla, Lompoc, CA, Pro Se.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Byron Geovany Payes-Chinchilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States 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), Payes-Chinchilla’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 Payes-Chinchilla the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental bi’ief or answering brief has been filed.

Payes-Chinchilla 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 his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his criminal history category. 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 Payes-Chinchilla’s plea or the criminal history category calculated by the court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     