Court Opinion

ID: 2675848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-27 21:00:29.312749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:28:28.694420
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAY 27 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10118

                Plaintiff - Appellee,            D.C. No. 2:11-cr-50171-JAT

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
DOUGLAS LANE GIBSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Arizona
                     Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding**

                              Submitted May 13, 2014***

Before:         CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       Douglas Lane Gibson appeals from the revocation of supervised release and

the eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation. 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 Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
          ***
             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), Gibson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Gibson 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   13-10118