Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Little Player, a.k.a. Player, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 530 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 11-50242
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Little Player, a.k.a. Player, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Little Player, a.k.a. Player, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50242.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Nili T. Moghaddam, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Rodriguez, Atwater, CA, pro se.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Rodriguez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 97-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez's 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 Rodriguez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Rodriguez waived his right to appeal five specified issues related to 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 any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.