Court Opinion

ID: 4506229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-10 22:00:24.931524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:55.350994
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-10162

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 5:17-cr-00136-LHK-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KISHOR CHAUDHARY,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                     Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Kishor Chaudhary appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea convictions and 12-month-and-one-day sentence for wire fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chaudhary’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 Chaudhary 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    19-10162