Duane Thomas Lee v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUANE THOMAS LEE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-16965
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-08138-JAT
3:05-cr-00594-JAT-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Duane Thomas Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of
violence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lee’s counsel has
* 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
FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16965
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lee 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, 80-81 (1988), discloses that the certified issues provide no basis for appellate
relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013); see also
United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1093-96 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,
143 S. Ct. 340 (2022).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --