United Statesv.Terpstra

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITAug 26, 2016
No. 15-10375 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016)

No. 15-10375

08-26-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON MICHAEL TERPSTRA, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-08190-GMS-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Jason Michael Terpstra appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 110-month sentence for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Terpstra'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 Terpstra the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Terpstra has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waivers, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

We decline to review any ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal only in the unusual cases where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation is so obviously inadequate that it denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel). We leave open the possibility that Terpstra might raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings. See id.

Counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.