United States v. Jonathan Boothe , 688 F. App'x 453 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30161
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00042-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JONATHAN PIERCE BOOTHE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Pierce Boothe appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 72-month aggregate sentence for bank
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1344; aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1028A; and being a felon in possession of a
*
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).
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Boothe’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 Boothe the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Boothe 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
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, except that the
waiver is invalid as to the restitution order because, at the time of the waiver,
Boothe was not provided with any estimate of the restitution amount. See United
States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, our
independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the
restitution order. We accordingly affirm the restitution order. We dismiss the
remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-30161