
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. FORD, a.k.a. James Ford, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10441
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 27, 2017
    Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    James L. Ford, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James L. Ford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and ten-month sentence for. escape, in violation of 18 U.S.G. §§ 751(a) and 4082(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ford’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 construe the letter submitted by Ford on September 19, 2017, as a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Ford waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

To the extent that Ford seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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