United States v. Duane Lee ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUANE THOMAS LEE, No. 18-16965
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-08138-JAT
3:05-cr-00594-JAT-1
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Duane Thomas Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of
violence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lee’s counsel has
*
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 a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lee 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, 80-81 (1988), discloses that the certified issues provide no basis for appellate
relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013); see also
United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081, 1093-96 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,
143 S. Ct. 340 (2022).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16965