
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Stephen HADLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50361.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jesse Gessin, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary Stephen Hadland appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) and (b)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hadland’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 Hadland the opportunity to file a' pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Hadland waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Hadland also waived the right to appeal six specified issues related to his 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 grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Hadland’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     