Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0673-01.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. Brian Scott ORR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Anthony James Lewis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elizabeth Richardson-Royer, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Brian Scott Órr, pro se.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is' suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Scott Orr appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Orr’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are. no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Orr filed pro se a letter and supplemental brief raising several arguments that the court has considered.

Orr waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Orr also waived the right to appeal five specified issues related to his sentence. 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 as to the voluntariness of Orr’s plea or any sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We grant the government’s motion to 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 address on direct appeal Orr’s contention that his attorney was ineffective. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).

Orr’s pending pro se motions are denied.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw 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.