Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. David Mitchell GOLD, Defendant— Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Mitchell David Gold, Defendant— Appellant.
    Nos. 02-50418, 02-50420. D.C. No. CR-01-00150-DOC-01, CR-01-00228-DOC-1.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2004.
    
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    
      Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., USLA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Phillip A. Trevino, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mitchell David Gold appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 97-month sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gold’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our examination of the briefs and independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no grounds for relief on these direct appeals.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.