United States v. Lewis
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Lewis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lewis-ca9-2024.