Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D'Angelo Domingo DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-23
Citations: 360 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 09-10167
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D’Angelo Domingo DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 783–784

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D’Angelo Domingo DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 23, 2009.
William S. Wong, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John P. Ward, Law Offices of John Ward, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
D'Angelo Domingo Davis appeals from the aggregate 728-month sentence imposed upon a second remand, following his jury-trial conviction for four counts of armed bank/credit union robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and three counts of using a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Davis' counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Davis has filed objections to counsel's motion to withdraw and a pro se supplemental brief. The government has not filed an answering brief.
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, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Davis' motion to file a late pro se supplemental opening brief is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the brief received on December 1, 2009.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.