Court Opinion

ID: 9926564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 23:00:44.901675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.800064
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JAN 24 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 23-1660
                                                 D.C. No. 9:22-cr-00056-DWM-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

ANDREW JOSEPH SHIELDS,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                    Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Andrew Joseph Shields appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 135-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Shields’s counsel has filed

      *
             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).
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. We have provided Shields the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

         Shields 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                                     23-1660