
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo VASQUEZ-TALAMANTES, a.k.a. Alfredo Talamantes, a.k.a. Alfredo Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50308.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2014.
    Jonathan Adam Alexander, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joshua A. Klein, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ellen Elizabeth Lansden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michelle Anderson Barth, Burlington, VT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Alfredo Vasquez-Talamantes, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Vasquez-Talamantes appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vii), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Vasquez-Talamantes’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 Vasquez-Talamantes the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Vasquez-Talamantes waived the right to appeal five 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 any sentencing issues 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     