Court Opinion

ID: 4360304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-18 21:00:41.220835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:46:24.293886
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 18 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-30178

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 9:17-cr-00018-DLC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RANDALL ALAN FRANZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                   Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before:      TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

      Randall Alan Franz appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and eight-month sentence for concealment of

assets in bankruptcy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Franz’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

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

We have provided Franz the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No

pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Franz waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                         2                                   18-30178