
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro ARRIOLA, aka Alejandro Ar-riola Aguilar, aka Matias Valencia Arreguin, aka Noe Fernandez, aka Cuahtemoc Fernandez Gonzalez, aka Luis Rubio, aka Luis Campo Rubio, aka Matias Valencia, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50212.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 3, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Aron Ketchel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Brady Larsen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Alejandro Arriola, Folkston, GA, 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

Alejandro Arriola appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Arriola-Aguilar’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 Arriola the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Arriola waived the right to appeal his sentence, except that he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s calculation of his criminal history category. 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 calculation of Arriola’s criminal history category. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the sentencing 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     