Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell CLAWSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 690 F. App'x 969
Docket Number: No. 16-10226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell CLAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 969–970

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell CLAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10226
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2017
Filed May 11, 2017
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Mitchell Clawson, Pro Se
Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, 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
'Mitchell Clawson appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clawson'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 Claw-son the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Clawson 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.
We remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to add "CIR" to the description of the offense and delete the language "or with a vulnerable population (i,e. elderly or physically or mentally handicapped)," and "and victim(s) family" from special condition numbers seven and ten, respectively. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.