Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0659-01.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. Douglas Arthur COUPAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50641.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., R. Stephen Kramer, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anthony E. Alexander, Esq., Atkins & Evans, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellant.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Arthur Coupar appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), upholding the 170-month sentence previously imposed following Coupar’s conviction for bank robbery. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Coupar’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Coupar has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief and a pro se reply brief. 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. The remaining outstanding motions are DENIED. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.