Court Opinion

ID: 4564905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-11 20:00:38.886884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:31.243181
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 11 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-30293

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00297-BLW-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
EUGENE CLEMENT CUTHBERT,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                    B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Eugene Clement Cuthbert appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 262-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cuthbert’s

      *
             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).
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 Cuthbert the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

      Cuthbert waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2                                    19-30293