Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph FOURHORNS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-18
Citations: 617 F. App'x 771
Docket Number: No. 15-30021
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph FOURHORNS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 771–772

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Joseph FOURHORNS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30021.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2015.
Filed Sept. 18, 2015.
Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal • Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Ronald Joseph Fourhorns appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Fourhorns'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 Fourhorns the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Fourhorns has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Fourhorns's appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir.2009).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.