
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Scott BURDSALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50022
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 16, 2018
    L. Ashley Aull, Victor Augustus Rodgers, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Joseph Timothy McNally, Esquire, AUSA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brian Scott Burdsall, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Scott Burdsall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Burdsall’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 Burdsall the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Burdsall 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 Burdsall’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.
     