USA V. MITCHELL CLAWSON, No. 16-10226 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-10226 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-01374-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* MITCHELL CLAWSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Mitchell Clawson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month sentence for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2244(a)(5), and 2246(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Clawson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that * 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). there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Clawson the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Clawson 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. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. We remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to add “CIR” to the description of the offense and delete the language “or with a vulnerable population (i.e. elderly or physically or mentally handicapped),” and “and victim(s) family” from special condition numbers seven and ten, respectively. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 2 16-10226

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.