Court Opinion

ID: 614634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-04 00:03:13+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:30.773576
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 03 2011

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 10-30103

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 6:07-cr-60108-HO

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
JUSTIN DOUGLAS NASON,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                    Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted September 27, 2011 **

Before:        HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

       Justin Douglas Nason appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Nason’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the

appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Nason has filed a

pro se brief, and no answering brief has been filed.

      Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (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.

                                          2                                    10-30103