NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50186
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00262-JAK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAE HO CHUNG, a.k.a. Jae Chung, a.k.a.
Jay Chung, a.k.a. Steve Chung,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jae Ho Chung appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea convictions and 63-month concurrent sentences for conspiracy to
commit bank fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chung’s counsel has filed a
*
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).
brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel of record. We have provided Chung the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Chung waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his pleas were 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 Chung’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.
2 16-50186