Filed: Jun. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10258 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:01-cr-05137-LJO-3 v. MEMORANDUM* DARWIN KEITH BUSH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Darwin Keith Bush
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10258 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:01-cr-05137-LJO-3 v. MEMORANDUM* DARWIN KEITH BUSH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Darwin Keith Bush ..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10258
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:01-cr-05137-LJO-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DARWIN KEITH BUSH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Darwin Keith Bush appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the revocation of supervised release, as well as the 8-month sentence
and 24-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bush’s counsel has filed a brief stating
*
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).
that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. We have provided Bush 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 19-10258