MEMORANDUM2

Jeffrey Vincent appeals his conviction and 212-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Vincent’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that she cannot identify any nonfrivolous issues for review. Vincent has filed a supplemental pro se brief.

Counsel and Vincent have identified several issues, none of which provides an arguable basis for appeal:

We reject the contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his drug offense. United States v. Tisor, 96 F.3d 370, 373-75 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court has broad subject matter jurisdiction over drug offenses).

Next, Vincent’s contention that his conviction by guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to inform him that he could be sentenced based on all relevant drug quantities is unpersuasive. Vincent’s substantial rights were not affected because the record reflects that he knew he could be sentenced to a term as long as the one he received. United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 1995).

Finally, as to Vincent’s contention that his sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we conclude that the record is not sufficiently developed and that the representation was not so inadequate as to be obviously ineffective. United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 290 (9th Cir. 1992). The claim is not appropriate on direct appeal and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal as to this claim. United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir. 1991).

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief on appeal, and Vincent’s pro se brief pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no further issues for review.3

Motion to withdraw GRANTED and judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.