Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0808-01.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. Johnny Ray GASCA; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 06-50686, 06-50688.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 9, 2010.
    Elena J. Duarte, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Nancy Spiegel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Law Offices of Kenneth M. Stern Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Johnny Ray Gasea appeals from his jury-trial convictions and 84-month sentence imposed for escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a); falsely representing a social security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); interstate communication of a threat, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d); witness retaliation, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3); and criminal infringement of a copyright 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gasca’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our 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), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district ' court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.