Court Opinion

ID: 212314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-15 00:01:38+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:11.186833
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 14 2011

                                                                        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. 08-30354

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 08-CR-00059-RFC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
JUVENILE MALE,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Montana
                  Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 8, 2011 **

Before:        FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       R.C., a juvenile male, appeals from an order in which the district court

adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and sentenced him to five years detention

based on violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(B) (sexual abuse) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 1153(a) (offense committed within Indian country). Pursuant to Anders v.

          *
             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).
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R.C.’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided the appellant with 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.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order

is AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    08-30354