
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alicia Marie CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30395
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 7, 2016 
    
    Filed November 09, 2016
    Tara Elliott, USMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant Alicia Marie Canales, Pro Se
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alicia Marie Canales appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 54-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Canales’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Canales has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

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 with respect to the conviction. We therefore affirm the conviction.

Canales entered into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver with respect to the sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of that waiver, we dismiss the remainder of Canales’s appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (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.
     