
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian LAFARGO, a.k.a. Bossy, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50203
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Aron Ketchel, Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esquire, Sono-ma, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Christian Lafargo, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christian Lafargo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month aggregate sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); violent crime in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); and discharging a firearm in furtherance of, and during and in relation to, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lafargo’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 Lafargo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Lafargo waived his 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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