
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Glenn MANUEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50459
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    
      L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher Copeland Kendall, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David Glenn Manuel, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Glenn Manuel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 96-month sentence for assault on a federal officer or employee resulting in the infliction of bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Manuel’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 Manuel the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Manuel 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 most aspects of 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 Manuel’s plea or any aspects of the sentence that fall outside the scope of the 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     