Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0618-01.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. Walter Mitchell STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30298
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Danna Rae Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney,, Colin Michael Rubich, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Walter Mitchell Stewart, Jr., Cascade County Detention Center, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Walter Mitchell Stewart, Jr., appeals from the revocation of supervised release and seven-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Stewart’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 grant Stewart’s pro se motion to file a second, supplemental brief. We have considered Stewart’s multiple pro se filings as well as the arguments raised in his motion to withdraw counsel. No answering brief has been 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 arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

To the extent that Stewart 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. Stewart’s pro se motion to withdraw counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

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