From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Christian

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 19, 2012
466 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10-30169 D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00287-EJL

01-19-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD CHRISTIAN, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted January 17, 2012

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

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

Gerald Christian appeals from his guilty plea conviction and 24-month sentence for possession of sexually exploitative images of minors in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Christian's 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 Christian 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.


Summaries of

United States v. Christian

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 19, 2012
466 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Christian

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD CHRISTIAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 19, 2012

Citations

466 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2012)