
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Fernando Chavez VALDEZ, aka Francisco Chavez, aka Jose Medina Lopez, aka Francisco Valdez, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-50034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, James Michael Left, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Francisco Fernando Chavez Valdez, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Fernando Chavez Valdez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valdez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Valdez has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

With regard to Valdez’s conviction and criminal history, from which he retained the right to appeal, our independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief, and we affirm.

Valdez waived his right to appeal his sentence with the exception of the calculation of his criminal history category. 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), indicates that the appeal waiver is operative. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

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.
     