MEMORANDUM **

Luis Carnet Heredia appeals from the 32-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carnet Heredia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Carnet Heredia submitted a pro se brief contending that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing to adequately address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); (2) considering impermissible factors; and (3) failing to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence.

The record belies Carnet Heredia’s contentions and reflects that the district court *685 did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where “the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range”).

Moreover, our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.