Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel BISHER, a.k.a. Dan Bisher, a.k.a. Daniel W. Bisher, a.k.a. Daniel William Bisher, a.k.a. T.S. Bisher, a.k.a. Clint Griffin, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-35701.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2014.
    Leo Griffard, Leo N. Griffard, Boise, ID, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Daniel Bisher, pro se.
    Traci Jo Whelan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Coeur D’Alene, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Bisher appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bisher’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Bisher has filed a pro se supplemental brief. 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. This court has concluded that the Controlled Substances Act does not violate the Tenth Amendment, see Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir.2007), and has rejected challenges to the constitutionality of Title 21, see United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1250 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1996). This court has also rejected challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir.1996).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.