
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexandra Castro MACABALO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10479
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 17, 2017
    Garth R. Backe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USNMI—Office of the US Attorney, Saipan, MP, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Alexandra Castro Macabalo, Pro Se
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alexandra Castro Macabalo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Macabalo’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 Macabalo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Macabalo waived the right to appeal her conviction. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Macabalo’s appeal as to her conviction. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

With respect to Macabalo’s 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, except that the written judgment, which reflects a 21-month custodial sentence, is inconsistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of a 20-month sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Macabalo’s sentence but remand the case with instructions to make the judgment consistent with the oral pronouncement. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     