
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50381
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 13, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joel Espinoza, 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

Joel Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Espinoza has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

However, the judgment does not accurately reflect the statute of conviction. We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that the conviction is for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding, sua sponte to correct the judgment).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     