
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando RAMIREZ-MENDOZA, a.k.a. Fernando M. Ramirez, a.k.a. Jesus Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50251.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Gregory Lesser, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Fernando Ramirez-Mendoza, Arleta, CA, pro se.
    Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando Ramirez-Mendoza appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 12-month and 1-day sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1896, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ramirez-Mendoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ramirez-Mendoza the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Ramirez-Mendoza waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also 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 Ramirez-Mendoza’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. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

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.
     