Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0395-02.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. James Douglas SHERIFFS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10403.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    
      Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    James Douglas Sheriffs, Anthony, TX, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

James Douglas Sheriffs appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a six-month sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sheriffs’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sheriffs has filed a pro se supplemental 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, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.