Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0876-01.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. Franklyn Don HAMMONTREE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30291
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    
      Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Franklyn Don Hammontree, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Franklyn Don Hammontree appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hammontree’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Hammon-tree 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 as to Hammontree’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Hammontree’s conviction.

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

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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.