United States v. Donald Hill

420 F. App'x 780
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 14, 2011
Docket09-10383
StatusUnpublished

This text of 420 F. App'x 780 (United States v. Donald Hill) 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. Donald Hill, 420 F. App'x 780 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Donald Michael Hill appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hill’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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 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. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 F. App'x 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-donald-hill-ca9-2011.