Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0781-01.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 Mathis McCREERY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30163.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 9, 2011.
    Michael J. Fica, Assistant U.S., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Mathis McCreery, Jr., Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Robert Mathis McCreery, Jr., appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to possess/distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), MeCreery’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. We construe the letter dated November 4, 2010, as a pro se supplemental brief.

To the extent McCreery requests appointment of new counsel, we deny the request. We also deny MeCreery’s motion requesting leave to provide additional pro se supplemental briefing.

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. We decline to rule on MeCreery’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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