United States v. Shawan Spragans
This text of United States v. Shawan Spragans (United States v. Shawan Spragans) 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10226
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:16-cr-00292-YGR
v. MEMORANDUM* SHAWAN SPRAGANS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Shawan Spragans appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea convictions and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to commit
robbery affecting interstate commerce, attempted robbery and robbery affecting
interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); discharging a firearm
* 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). during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii); and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Spragans’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds
for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have
provided Spragans the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Spragans waived his right to appeal his 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.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.
2 17-10226
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. Shawan Spragans, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shawan-spragans-ca9-2018.