Case ID: f-appx_674/html/0750-01.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. Carol Lynette PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30056
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Zeno Benjamin Baucus, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Carol Lynette Pearson, Pro Se
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carol Lynette Pearson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pearson’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 Pearson’s motion to amend her supplemental brief to include an additional argument. We have considered Pearson’s pro se supplemental briefs and the government’s answering brief.

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 as to Pearson’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Pearson’s conviction.

Pearson waived the right to appeal her sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Pearson’s appeal as to her sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

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

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