Narrative Opinion Summary
James Dean Mitchell appeals his conviction and 37-month sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, under 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and § 113(a)(6). His counsel, citing Anders v. California, has filed a brief indicating no grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw. Mitchell has not submitted a pro se supplemental brief. An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, was conducted. The court affirms the conviction but remands the sentence for further proceedings in line with United States v. Ameline. The motion to withdraw as counsel is denied. The conviction is affirmed, and the sentence is remanded. This disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in the courts of this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the conviction after reviewing the case details.
Reasoning: The court affirms the conviction but remands the sentence for further proceedings in line with United States v. Ameline.
Anders Brief and Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and sought to withdraw from representation.
Reasoning: His counsel, citing Anders v. California, has filed a brief indicating no grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw.
Denial of Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the motion for counsel to withdraw from the case.
Reasoning: The motion to withdraw as counsel is denied.
Independent Record Review Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record was conducted in accordance with Penson v. Ohio.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, as per Penson v. Ohio, was conducted.
Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This case disposition is not to be published or cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: This disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in the courts of this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Remand for Further Sentencing Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The sentence was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the guidance of United States v. Ameline.
Reasoning: The court affirms the conviction but remands the sentence for further proceedings in line with United States v. Ameline.