Case ID: f-appx_686/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward DIAZ, a.k.a. Bouncer, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50081
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 7, 2017 
    
    Filed April 11, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S, Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 136-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Diaz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Diaz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Diaz waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the right to appeal his 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 as to the voluntariness of Diaz’s plea. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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