
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgardo SOLORIO-CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 21, 2013.
    Michael D. Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Colin J. Heran, Central California Appellate Program, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Edgardo Solorio-Camacho, Safford, AZ, pro se.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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

Edgardo Solorio-Camacho appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Solorio-Camacho’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 Solorio-Cama-cho the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Solorio-Camacho has waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Solorio-Camacho’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     