United States of America v. DAVID VERDEN WILLIAMS, Jr., a.k.a. David Verden Williams

13-10544Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit29 lug 2014

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID VERDEN WILLIAMS, Jr., a.k.a.
David Verden Williams,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10544
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00937-SOM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
David Verden Williams, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
FILED
JUL 29 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 --

(1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Williams has
submitted a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appellate waiver in the parties’ plea
agreement.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Williams’s conviction.
We accordingly affirm Williams’s conviction.
Williams has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record
discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss
Williams’s appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974,
986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
All other pending motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-10544 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.