United States v. Duane Lee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 18-16965
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DUANE THOMAS LEE, No. 18-16965

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-08138-JAT 3:05-cr-00594-JAT-1 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Duane Thomas Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of

violence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lee’s counsel has

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lee 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 (1988), discloses that the certified issues provide no basis for appellate

relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013); see also

United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1093-96 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

143 S. Ct. 340 (2022).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16965