United States of America v. Edmundo Rodriguez, a.k.a. Blacky, a.k.a. Armando Ramirez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDMUNDO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Blacky,
a.k.a. Armando Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50050
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00645-MWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Edmundo Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for distribution of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). Pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rodriguez’s counsel has filed a brief
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50050
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. Rodriguez has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering
brief has been filed.
Rodriguez 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds
for relief as to the voluntariness of Rodriguez’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).
To the extent that Rodriguez seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States
v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
In conjunction with his pro se supplemental brief, Rodriguez filed a request
to proceed in forma pauperis. A review of the district court docket reflects that the
district court found defendant financially eligible for appointed counsel.
Appellant’s in forma pauperis status continues in this court. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3). Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is therefore
unnecessary.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50050
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --