United States v. Gary Hadland , 609 F. App'x 400 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           JUN 29 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50361
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00096-AG
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    GARY STEPHEN HADLAND,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 22, 2015**
    Before:        HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Gary Stephen Hadland appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for possession of
    child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) and (b)(2). Pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), Hadland’s counsel has filed a brief
    *
    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).
    stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
    counsel of record. We have provided Hadland the opportunity to file a pro se
    supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
    filed.
    Hadland waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
    appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Hadland also waived the
    right to appeal six specified issues related to 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 Hadland’s plea or any
    sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to
    those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal
    waiver. 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                                  14-50361
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-50361

Citation Numbers: 609 F. App'x 400

Judges: Hawkins, Graber, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/29/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024