Case ID: f-appx_277/html/0723-01.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. Gorden Steve MAHOOD, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gorden Steve Mahood, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gorden Steve Mahood, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-30227, 06-30228, 06-30230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed May 8, 2008.
    Timothy J. Racicot, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Gorden Steven Mahood, Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, OR, David E. Stenerson, Hamilton, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated cases, Gordon Steve Mahood appeals from his 111-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a), (e); aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A; and attempted escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ma-hood’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 the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Pennon 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.