Court Opinion

ID: 212327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-15 00:02:02+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:11.206659
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                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               MAR 14 2011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. 09-10383

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00580-MHM

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
DONALD MICHAEL HILL,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 8, 2011 **

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

       Donald Michael Hill appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month

sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders

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

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

          *
             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).
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. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                         2                                   09-10383