Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VERKLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 15-30244
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VERKLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VERKLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30244
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Francis Franze-Nakamura, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
George Verkler, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George Verkler appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 24-month concurrent sentences for theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, consecutive to 24-month concurrent sentences for aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Verkler's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Verkler has filed pro se supplemental opening and reply briefs. No answering brief has been filed.
Verkler 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, including the voluntariness of the plea. 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 Verkler seeks to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address these issues on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED; Verkler's pro se motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint substitute counsel is DENIED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.