Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0661-01.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. Duane Antonio MARTELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30358.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 30, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 12, 2015.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Laura Bissett Weiss, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Duane Antonio Martell, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Duane Antonio Martell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea convictions for two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3), and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Martell’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Martell filed a late supplemental brief on July 28, 2014 and we granted his motion to file that brief. On November 21, 2014, Martell filed a motion to file another late supplemental brief. We deny that motion. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

We decline to review Martell’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.2011). We leave open the possibility that Martell might raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings. See id.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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