Court Opinion

ID: 9947419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 20:01:28.979579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.580659
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 4 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-418
                                                D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00416-TLN-AC-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DAWANE ARTHUR MALLETT,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Dawane Arthur Mallett appeals from the district court’s amended judgment

imposing a reduced sentence of 294 months following the court’s order granting

Mallett’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and vacating Mallett’s two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

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

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

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Mallett has filed two pro se

supplemental briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief, to which

Mallett filed a reply.

      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. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in correcting the sentence only as to the

vacated § 924(c) counts and declining to conduct a full resentencing on the

remaining counts. See Troiano v. United States, 918 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (9th Cir.

2019). Mallett’s pro se challenges to the corrected sentence are without merit, and

his challenges to his other counts of conviction are beyond the scope of this appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     23-418