Opinion
21-30234
10-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRISTAN JAMAL GRANT, AKA Goo, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:21-cr-00027-TMB-MMS-1
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Tristan Jamal Grant appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his bench-trial conviction and 36-month sentence for escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Grant's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Grant has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Grant's pro se contention that he was not in "custody" within the meaning of the escape statute when he failed to return to prison at 5:00 p.m. is unavailing. See United States v. Keller, 912 F.2d 1058, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming escape conviction because defendant's custody began as of the time he was ordered to report, even if he was not physically restrained at that point).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).