Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. FORD, a.k.a. James Ford, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 700 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 16-10441
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. FORD, a.k.a. James Ford, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. FORD, a.k.a. James Ford, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10441
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 27, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
James L. Ford, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James L. Ford appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty- plea conviction and ten-month sentence for. escape, in violation of 18 U.S.G. § 751(a) and 4082(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ford'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 construe the letter submitted by Ford on September 19, 2017, as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Ford waived his right to appeal his conviction and 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.
To the extent that Ford 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).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.