From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Stewart

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 6, 2008
277 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-50572.

Submitted April 22, 2008.

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

Filed May 6, 2008.

Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Douglas E. Miller, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Locklin, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-01499-CAS-1.

Before: GRABER, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Kendall Stewart appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Stewart's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

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 arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Stewart

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 6, 2008
277 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendall STEWART…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 6, 2008

Citations

277 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2008)