Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven M. UNDERHILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-28
Citations: 583 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 13-10516
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven M. UNDERHILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven M. UNDERHILL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10516.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 28, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Lawrence Middleton, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Mario D. Valencia, Attorney at Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Steven M. Underhill appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and five-year term of probation for two counts of making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and one count of witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Underhill'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 Underhill the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Underhill has 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.
Counsels 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.