Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Dewayne WHITE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 217 F. App'x 729
Docket Number: No. 05-10691
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Dewayne WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 729–729

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Dewayne WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10691.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Thomas S. Dougherty, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Lloyd George Federal Bldg., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Todd Leventhall, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Frederick Dewayne White appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 110-month sentence imposed for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), White's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief has been filed.
Because our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that White knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.