22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T49b,MEMORANDUM Jaime Garcia-Ontiveros appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Ontiveros’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 Garcia-Ontive-ros the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Garcia-Ontiveros 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. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4cd,

MEMORANDUM

Jaime Garcia-Ontiveros appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Ontiveros’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 Garcia-Ontive-ros the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Garcia-Ontiveros 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.

DISMISSED.

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