United States v. Lewis

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 6, 2024
Docket23-3122
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Lewis (United States v. Lewis) 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. Lewis, (9th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3122 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 9:23-cr-00020-DWM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* BRITTANY NICOLE LEWIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Brittany Nicole Lewis appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges her guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lewis’s counsel has filed a

* 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). brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. We have provided Lewis the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Lewis waived her right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

We decline to address on direct appeal Lewis’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on

direct appeal).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 23-3122

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)
United States v. Rahman
642 F.3d 1257 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Watson
582 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Lewis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lewis-ca9-2024.