
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Francisco TORRECILLAS-TORRES, a.k.a. Kiko, a.k.a. Francisco Torrecillas-Torres, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed June 27, 2014.
    Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Tara Kristine Hoveland, South Lake Tahoe, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Juan Francisco Torrecillas-Torres, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Torrecillas-Torres’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Francisco Torrecillas-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Torrecillas-Torres’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Torrecillas-Torres has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Torrecillas-Torres has 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.

Torrecillas-Torres’s contention that the appeal waiver is unenforceable is unpersuasive. We decline to consider Torrecillas-Torres’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim on direct appeal, and Torrecillas-Torres’s legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny his right to counsel. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     