United States v. Adams

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Adams

333 F. App'x 276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 2009

DocketNo. 07-10382

StatusPublished

This text of 333 F. App'x 276 (United States v. Adams) 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

United States v. Adams, 333 F. App'x 276 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Roland Adams appeals from the district court’s order, upon remand, in which it ruled that $199,670.15 was subject to forfeiture, and in which it denied several post-conviction motions. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Adams’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and several pro se motions. 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 related to the forfeiture.

We lack jurisdiction to reach the contentions raised in Adams’ pro se brief regarding his conviction and sentence because the district court’s order directing him to raise those issues in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is not an appealable final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The appellant’s pending motions are DENIED.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the amended judgment to clarify that it incorporates the amended preliminary order of forfeiture, filed June 5, 2007, rather than the original order, filed October 10, 2003.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Roland Adams appeals from the district court’s order, upon remand, in which it ruled that $199,670.15 was subject to forfeiture, and in which it denied several post-conviction motions. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Adams’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and several pro se motions. 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 related to the forfeiture.

We lack jurisdiction to reach the contentions raised in Adams’ pro se brief regarding his conviction and sentence because the district court’s order directing him to raise those issues in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is not an appealable final decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The appellant’s pending motions are DENIED.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the amended judgment to clarify that it incorporates the amended preliminary order of forfeiture, filed June 5, 2007, rather than the original order, filed October 10, 2003.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adams-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack