Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Manu Sorensen, 15-10389 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 15-10389
Filed: Apr. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10389 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00030-LEK v. MEMORANDUM* MANU SORENSEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 13, 2016** Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Manu Sorensen appeals from
More
                                                                            FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 18 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10389

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00030-LEK

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MANU SORENSEN,

               Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of Hawaii
                    Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 13, 2016**

Before:        FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Manu Sorensen appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the

11-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738
(1967), Sorensen’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

          *
             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).
provided Sorensen 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                 15-10389

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer