668 F. App'x 748
9th Cir.
2016

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Michael Terpstra, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10444

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 26, 2016

748

Submitted August 24, 2016*
Filed August 26, 2016

Karla Delord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Michael Terpstra, Pro Se.

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lino RODRIGUEZ-PARTIDA, a.k.a. Antelmo Rodriguez-Partida, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10426

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 26, 2016

748-49

Submitted August 24, 2016*
Filed August 26, 2016

Karla Delord, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lino Rodriguez-Partida, Pro Se.

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Lino Rodriguez-Partida appeals from the district court‘s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rodriguez-Partida‘s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Rodriguez-Partida has waived his right to appeal both the conviction and the sentence. 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 is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

Michael Angelo LENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15011

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 26, 2016

749

Submitted August 16, 2016*
Filed August 26, 2016

Michael Angelo Lena, Pro Se.

Before: O‘SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael Angelo Lena appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access-to-courts and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court‘s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.