United States v. Jason Terpstra , 668 F. App'x 747 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    AUG 26 2016
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   15-10375
    Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No.
    3:13-cr-08190-GMS-1
    v.
    JASON MICHAEL TERPSTRA,                          MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 24, 2016**
    Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    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
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-10375

Citation Numbers: 668 F. App'x 747

Filed Date: 8/26/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023