Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Laurie LAPLANTE ANGOUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-08
Citations: 307 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 06-30549
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Laurie LAPLANTE ANGOUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Laurie LAPLANTE ANGOUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30549.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 8, 2009.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Susan M. Harrison, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Elizabeth Laurie LaPlante Angous appeals from the 95-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud, wire fraud, fraud and related activity in connection with access devices, misuse of another person's Social Security number, and aggravated identity theft. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Angous'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 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. Appellant's pro se letter, received on November 20, 2008, renewing her request for appointment of new counsel, is ordered filed, and the request is denied. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.