Court Opinion

ID: 174933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-07 23:41:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:32.346596
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 07 2010

                                                                        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. 09-50427

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:99-cr-01168-RSWL

  v.

BRIAN MCLUCAS,                                   MEMORANDUM *

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 23, 2010 **

Before:        LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       Brian McLucas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 235-month

concurrent sentence reimposed after a limited remand pursuant to United States v.

Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

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

          *
             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).
has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided McLucas 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 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                                        09-50427