Case ID: f-appx_307/html/0033-01.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. Robert COMITO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-10749.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Jan. 8, 2009.
    Camille Damm, Esq., Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Todd Leventhal, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Comito appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Comito’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a pro se reply brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

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. Appellant’s motion for substitution of counsel is DENIED. 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.