Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Darwin Bush, 19-10258 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 19-10258 Visitors: 11
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Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10258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
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                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

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