U.S.
v.
Stoll

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitJul 19, 2007
244 Fed. Appx. 132 (9th Cir. 2007)

No. 05-50363.

Submitted July 9, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 19, 2007.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Christopher M. Brunwin, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Locklin, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00011-RT.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


John Edward Stoll appeals from the jury-trial conviction and 21-month sentence imposed for illegal possession of pseudoephedrine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Stoll has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Stoll has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed notification that it does not intend to file an answering brief.

Our review of the briefs and record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.