Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn LUNDY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-06
Citations: 651 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 15-30103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn LUNDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn LUNDY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30103
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 2, 2016
Filed June 6, 2016
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Richard Edward Cohen, Karyn Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Steven Toshio Masada, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shawn Lundy, Joint Base MDL, NJ, Pro Se.
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
Shawn Lundy appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 10-year sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and possession of counterfeit obligations or securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lundy's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Lundy the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Lundy has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the 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.