Court Opinion

ID: 621284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-01-21 01:01:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:55.946759
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JAN 20 2012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. 10-30352

               Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00178-EJL

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
SCOTT ANDREW HENRY,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Idaho
                     Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 17, 2012 **

Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

       Scott Andrew Henry appeals from his conviction and 108-month sentence

for possession of sexually explicit images of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Henry’s

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

          *
             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).
to withdraw as counsel of record. We 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