United States of America v. RAVON MURRLEY, AKA Ant, AKA Crook, AKA Lil' Crook, AKA Ravon Tranell Murrley, AKA…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAVON MURRLEY, AKA Ant, AKA
Crook, AKA Lil' Crook, AKA Ravon
Tranell Murrley, AKA Ray, AKA RayRay,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50071
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00338-SJO-40
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Ravon Murrley appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 216-month sentence for racketeer influenced
and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and
* 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 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-50071
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Murrley’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 Murrley the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Murrley waived his right to appeal his convictions, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. Murrley also waived the
right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. 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 the voluntariness of Murrley’s pleas or any aspect of the sentence
that falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We, therefore, affirm as to those
issues. Having found no arguable issues as to the enforceability of the appeal
waiver, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582
F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --