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)
13-10220•United States of America v. Dongjun Li
13-10220Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 28, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONGJUN LI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10220
D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00029-RVM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Ramona V. Manglona, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
DongJun Li appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
jury-trial conviction and sentence of 12 months and one day for preventing or
hampering removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Li’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there
FILED
NOV 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
We have provided Li 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to Li’s
conviction. We, accordingly, affirm the conviction.
Because Li has completed his custodial sentence and his term of supervised
release, his challenge to the sentence is moot. See United States v. Palomba, 182
F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as to his
sentence.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-10220 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.