United States v. Kenneth Oliver , 679 F. App'x 594 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 06 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   16-10045
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
    2:14-cr-00128-TLN-1
    v.
    KENNETH DWAYNE OLIVER,                           MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 2, 2017**
    Before:      HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    Kenneth Dwayne Oliver appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 130-month sentence for distribution of
    cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession
    *
    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).
    with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute
    heroin, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), Oliver’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
    provided Oliver the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. He has filed a
    pro se brief. No answering brief has been filed.
    Oliver has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because
    the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we
    dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 
    582 F.3d 974
    , 986-88 (9th Cir.
    2009).
    We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to
    reflect that the conviction on count 6 is for possession with intent to distribute
    cocaine base and the conviction on count 7 is for possession with intent to
    distribute heroin. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 
    232 F.3d 715
    , 719 (9th Cir.
    2000) (remanding sua sponte to correct the judgment).
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    DISMISSED; Remanded to correct the judgment.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10045

Citation Numbers: 679 F. App'x 594

Filed Date: 3/6/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023