United States v. Coupar
This text of 302 F. App'x 659 (United States v. Coupar) 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
Douglas Arthur Coupar appeals from the district court’s decision, following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), upholding the 170-month sentence previously imposed following Coupar’s conviction for bank robbery. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Coupar’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Coupar has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief and a pro se reply brief. 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. The remaining outstanding motions are DENIED. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
302 F. App'x 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-coupar-ca9-2008.