Court Opinion

ID: 9374322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:46.213441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.540221
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

SHAWN TYRONE PERCY,                             No.    17-16365

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. Nos.    2:16-cv-02066-DGC
                                                             2:98-cr-00873-DGC-1
 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

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

      Shawn Tyrone Percy 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), Percy’s counsel

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

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Percy 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 issue provides 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                                    17-16365