
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary Wayne RODRIGUES, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-10490.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2010.
    Florence T. Nakakuni, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Wayne Rodrigues, Federal Correctional Institution, Taft, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary Wayne Rodrigues appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the government’s motion to disburse funds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodrigues contends the district court erred by granting the government’s motion to disburse funds because, in affirming his sentence after this court remanded under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), the district court stated that any payment plan while in custody was an issue for the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). The district court’s order on remand did not address the parties’ stipulation regarding payment and, although the BOP has determined that Rod-rigues would pay $25.00 quarterly to satisfy his remaining obligations, the BOP’s payment plan did not override the parties’ stipulated agreement or the judgment’s requirement that he pay the fíne and restitution immediately. See, e.g., United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that district court is required to set restitution payment schedule and that inmate may voluntarily make larger and more frequent payments than what was set by the district court). Therefore, the district court did not err by granting the government’s motion to disburse funds.

To the extent Rodrigues raises additional arguments for the first time in this appeal, those are waived. See Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1026 n. 12 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 486 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     