
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Martin FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50571.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Allison Lynne Westfahl Kong, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrea Renee St. Julian, Esquire, Andrea St. Julian, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      ■ Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Martin Ferguson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ferguson’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 Ferguson the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Ferguson 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 the voluntariness of Ferguson’s plea or- 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     