Court Opinion

ID: 9374320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:45.456368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.515300
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DUANE THOMAS LEE,                               No.    18-16965

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. Nos.    3:16-cv-08138-JAT
                                                             3:05-cr-00594-JAT-1
 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Duane Thomas Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of

violence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lee’s counsel has

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lee 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 (1988), discloses that the certified issues provide no basis for appellate

relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013); see also

United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1093-96 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

143 S. Ct. 340 (2022).

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

         AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    18-16965