Candice Lewis v. Walter Miller

670 F. App'x 927
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 21, 2016
Docket13-16078
StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 927 (Candice Lewis v. Walter Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Candice Lewis v. Walter Miller, 670 F. App'x 927 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Candice Lewis appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 *928 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lewis’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 Lewis 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 briefing and record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Kinte Graves v. Scott McEwen
731 F.3d 876 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
670 F. App'x 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candice-lewis-v-walter-miller-ca9-2016.