Court Opinion

ID: 2343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-22 17:52:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:58.257785
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 21 2010

                                                                        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. 09-50239

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:03-cr-01281-DDP

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
MELVIN LEWIS,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                     Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

                               Submitted April 5, 2010 **

Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Melvin Lewis appeals from the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

          *
             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).
       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lewis’ 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.

      Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    09-50239