United States of America v. Steven Ritchard Scott

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN RITCHARD SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30220
D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00134-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Steven Ritchard Scott appeals from the aggregate 61-month sentence
imposed upon re-sentencing following a successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Scott’s counsel has filed a
brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
FILED
SEP 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30220 2
counsel of record. Scott filed a pro se supplemental brief, contending that the
district court erred in calculating his criminal history category and, by extension,
the applicable advisory guidelines range.
Contrary to Scott’s contention, the record reflects that the district court
correctly calculated two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(b) for
Scott’s 2002 forgery conviction for which the state court imposed a sentence of 90
days imprisonment. See United States v. Schomburg, 929 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir.
1991). Moreover, 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.
Scott’s urgent motion to expedite the case is denied as moot.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --