Court Opinion

ID: 798318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-19 20:22:31+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:44.784140
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 19 2012

                                                                        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. 11-10363

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00116-DAE

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
SIMETI LUALEMAGA,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Hawaii
                     David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 17, 2012 **

Before:        LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

       Simeti Lualemaga appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 60-month

sentence for assault of a United States government employee with a deadly

weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111.

          *
             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), Lualemaga’s 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 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                                        11-10363