United States of America v. Lawrence Erskine Taylor

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE ERSKINE TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 08-50386 & 08-50389
D.C. Nos. 2:04-cr-01227-RSWL
2:04-cr-01228-RSWL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Lawrence Erskine Taylor appeals from the
aggregate 240-month sentence imposed upon a remand for resentencing, following
FILED
DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 08-50386, 08-50389 2
his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 844(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Taylor’s 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 --