United States v. Allen
This text of 101 F. App'x 754 (United States v. Allen) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Burton Chanta Alen appeals the district court’s imposition of a 188-month sentence upon remand. This court previously affirmed Alen’s conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), vacated the original sentence and remanded for resentencing. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Alen has filed a brief stating that he finds 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 examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 F. App'x 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-allen-ca9-2004.