Case ID: f-appx_611/html/0467-01.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. Robin M. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10553.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 3, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2015.
    Jill Aiko Otake, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Deanna S. Dotson, Law Offices of Deanna S. Dotson, Dana Point, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    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

Robin Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the order of restitution, conviction, and 105-month sentence for conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lee’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with, a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lee has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the appellee has filed an answering brief.

Lee waived his right to appeal his conviction. He also waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of his right to challenge the amount of restitution. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to the amount of restitution ordered by the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3); United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009).

We decline to review Lee’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.2011) (recognizing that we generally do not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal). We leave open the possibility that Lee might raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings. See id.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.

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