
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Sergio BRISENO, a.k.a. Guillermo Briseno, a.k.a. Juan Vincente Guerra, a.k.a. Juan Vicente Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50317
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 31, 2016 
    
    FILED September 02, 2016
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, AUSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana Branch Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlos Sergio Briseno, 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

Carlos Sergio Briseno appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(I). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brise-no’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 Briseno the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Briseno'waived his right to appeal his sentence, although he retained the right to appeal some conditions of supervised release. 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 regarding the terms and conditions of supervised release. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. 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.
     