United States of America v. DAVID L. GUIDRY, AKA David Guidry, AKA David Louis Guidry

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID L. GUIDRY, AKA David Guidry,
AKA David Louis Guidry,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10088
D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00027-JAM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
David L. Guidry appeals from the district court’s order revoking his
conditional discharge and remanding him to the custody of the Attorney General
for commitment to a suitable facility under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(g). Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Guidry’s counsel has filed a brief
* 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
APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10088
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We treat Guidry’s letter, submitted at Docket Entry No. 16, as 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.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Any other pending requests
are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --