United States of America v. Ronnie Owen

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RONNIE OWEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30023
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00098-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ronnie Owen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea conviction and 36-month sentence for identity theft, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30023 2
Owen’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along
with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Owen the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Owen waived his right to appeal his conviction. He also waived the right to
appeal his sentence, with the exception of his right to challenge the amount of
restitution. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as the amount of
restitution ordered by the district court. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We
dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Owen’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --