Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0611-02.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. William James STRICKLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-30137.
    D.C. No. CR-01-05481-FDB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 15, 2003.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding.
    Douglas J. Hill, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Seattle, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Peggy Sue Juergens, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, William James Strickland, psro se, SeaTac, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William James Strickland appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Strickland’s counsel has filed a brief stating that she finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our examination of the briefs and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Aecordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We decline to address Strickland’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994).