The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-50453•United States of America v. Dashon Lavar Richardson
08-50453Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 25, 2010
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).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DASHON LAVAR RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50453
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00322-R
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Dashon Lavar Richardson appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 168-
month sentence for distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in
FILED
JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
EF/Research 08-50453 2
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Richardson’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has
filed a pro se supplemental brief and a pro se motion to “consolidate issues and
facts within his motion.” The government has filed a motion to summarily affirm
the conviction and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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.
The government’s motion is DENIED. See United States v. Jacobo
Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The appellant’s pro se
motion is also DENIED.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND sua sponte for the limited
purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that the term of supervised release is
five years for Count 4 and three years for Count 7, to run concurrently. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(b); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)-(C).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.