Court Opinion

ID: 9901893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:00:50.786639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.102450
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-445
                                                D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01370-AJB-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

JUAN MARQUIS HOLIDAY,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                  Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Marquis Holiday appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 64-year-and-10-month sentence imposed on remand for

resentencing following his jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of interference

and attempted interference with commerce by robbery and brandishing and

      *
             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).
discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951, and 924(c), respectively. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Holiday’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 Holiday 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.

      Holiday’s pro se motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

      AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                    23-445