
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YU HUA WANG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10224
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 27, 2017
    Garth R. Backe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USNMI—Office of the US Attorney, Saipan, MP, Ross K. Naughton, USSAC— Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Yu Hua Wang, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yu Hua Wang appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Wang’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 Wang the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Wang waived his right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of claims based on prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the involuntariness of his plea. 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 Wang’s plea or any prosecutorial misconduct. 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). We decline to address on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

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.
     