Court Opinion

ID: 4215647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-27 20:01:47.856582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:43.716936
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 27 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 17-10043

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00297-DJH

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERLE BRANDON MARTIN,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before:      LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Merle Brandon Martin appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and the 30-month sentence imposed for

assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and

113(a)(6). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Martin’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 Martin the

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

answering brief has been filed.

       Martin 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                                    17-10043