From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Vaksman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2012
479 F. App'x 146 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-30302 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00074-WFN

09-19-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FABIAN VAKSMAN, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Fabian Vanksman appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 10-month sentence for contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vaksman'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 Vaksman 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 (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).

Vaksman's pro se request for appointment of substitute counsel, pro se motions for certification to the Washington Supreme Court, and pro se supplemental motions for certification to the Washington Supreme Court are DENIED.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

United States v. Vaksman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 19, 2012
479 F. App'x 146 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Vaksman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FABIAN VAKSMAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 19, 2012

Citations

479 F. App'x 146 (9th Cir. 2012)