Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-19
Citations: 472 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 10-30155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 19, 2012.
Kory Larsen, Special Assistant U.S. USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark D. Meyer, Ugrin Alexander Zadick & Higgins, PC, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Billy Joe Curtis appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Curtis's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Curtis has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Curtis's conviction. Curtis waived his right to appeal his sentence. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.