United States of America v. Dawane Arthur Mallett

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAWANE ARTHUR MALLETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-418
D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00416-TLN-AC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Dawane Arthur Mallett appeals from the district court’s amended judgment
imposing a reduced sentence of 294 months following the court’s order granting
Mallett’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and vacating Mallett’s two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
convictions. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mallett’s
* 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
MAR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-418
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Mallett has filed two pro se
supplemental briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief, to which
Mallett filed a reply.
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. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in correcting the sentence only as to the
vacated § 924(c) counts and declining to conduct a full resentencing on the
remaining counts. See Troiano v. United States, 918 F.3d 1082, 1086-88 (9th Cir.
2019). Mallett’s pro se challenges to the corrected sentence are without merit, and
his challenges to his other counts of conviction are beyond the scope of this appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --