Court Opinion

ID: 151275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-07-22 00:07:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:57.979453
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 21 2010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. 09-30317

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00308-EJL

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
BRIAN SCOTT MIXON,

               Defendant - Appellant.

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

                              Submitted June 29, 2010 **

Before:        ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

       Brian Scott Mixon appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month

sentence for possession of sexually explicit images of minors, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and from his forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 2253. Pursuant

          *
             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 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mixon’s 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 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.

         Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    09-30317