United States of America v. Donald Lee Claus

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD LEE CLAUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10075
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01321-MHM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Donald Lee Claus appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month
sentence imposed for knowingly receiving child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
FILED
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 09-10075 2
we affirm the district court.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Claus’ 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --