From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Locklear

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 1, 2007
249 F. App'x 596 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-10430.

Submitted September 24, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 1, 2007.

John Zachary Boyle, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gail Gianasi Natale, Esq., Law Office of Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-00751-FJM.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Norma Sylvia Locklear appeals from her jury-trial conviction and 24-month sentence for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lock-lear's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, appellant's pro se motion for bail is DENIED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Locklear

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 1, 2007
249 F. App'x 596 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

U.S. v. Locklear

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norma Sylvia LOCKLEAR…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 1, 2007

Citations

249 F. App'x 596 (9th Cir. 2007)