Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence TSOSIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-01
Citations: 633 F. App'x 411
Docket Number: No. 14-10485
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence TSOSIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 411–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence TSOSIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10485.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2016.
Filed Feb. 1, 2016.
Tracy Van Buskirk, Assistant U.S., Kris-sa Marie Lanham, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas Erickson, Phoenix, AZ, for De-fendantr-Appellant.
Clarence Tsosie, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, 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
Clarence Tsosie appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his. guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for assault resulting in serious injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 113(a)(6). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Tsosie'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 Tsosie the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Tsosie has waived his right to appeal his conviction, sentence, and order of restitution. 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 as counsel is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3..