Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kerry SEAMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 501
Docket Number: No. 13-10235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kerry SEAMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 501–502

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kerry SEAMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10235.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
S. Robert Tice-Raskin, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Barry L. Morris, Barry L. Morris, Attorney at Law, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kerry Seaman, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kerry Seaman appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 44-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Seaman's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Seaman has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief.
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.
We decline to review Seaman's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal because this is not one of the "unusual cases where (1) the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel." United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.2011).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Seaman's request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.