Court Opinion

ID: 3031701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 22:46:26.970532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:32.050315
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 08 2010

                                                                        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. 08-50563

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01423-ABC

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
 ANTONIO DERRYL THOMAS,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                  Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted December 15, 2009 **

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

        Antonio Derryl Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking

his supervised release and imposing a 30-day sentence of imprisonment, plus a

          *
             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).

DRS/Research
new 32-month term of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Thomas’ 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.

DRS/Research                              2                                    08-50563