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)
21-10209•United States of America v. BRIAN DAVID WALKER, AKA Brian Damien Walker Wraith
21-10209Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 22, 2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIAN DAVID WALKER, AKA Brian
Damien Walker Wraith,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10209
D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00839-DJH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Brian David Walker appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 10-month sentence for failure to register
as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Walker’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 21-10209
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. Walker has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No 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. Contrary
to Walker’s pro se contention, application of § 2250(a) did not violate the Ex Post
Facto Clause. See United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). In
addition, by entering an unconditional guilty plea, Walker waived his right to bring
his pro se challenges to the validity of the indictment and the denial of his motion
to dismiss. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Walker’s
remaining pro se contentions are not supported by the record and are otherwise
unavailing.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Walker’s pro se motion to
strike the Anders brief, and all other pending motions, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.