MEMORANDUM **
Andrew Al Littleman appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 57-month concurrent sentences for sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a) and 2246(2)(C), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Littlemans 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 Littleman the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Littleman waived his right to appeal his convictions 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.
We remand, however, for the district court to conform the written judgment to the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). At sentencing, the district court agreed to strike “in the company of” from special condition of supervised release 11, and it did not include that language when it orally pronounced the condition. Accordingly, on remand, the district court is directed to strike from special condition 11 in the written judgment the following language: “be in the company of or.”
Counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.