Case ID: f-appx_83/html/0217-01.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. Theodore Elko LUCIOW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-10293.
    D.C. No. CR-90-00282-2-PGR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
    Michael Thomas Morrissey, Esq., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ronald D. Wood, Esq., Show Low, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Theodore Elko Luciow appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 12-month sentence upon revocation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Luciow’s counsel has submitted a brief stating that he has found no meritorious issues for review. Appellant did not file a supplemental pro se brief, and no government brief was filed.

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 grounds for relief. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is 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.