Narrative Opinion Summary
Steve Eric Key appeals the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His counsel, following Anders v. California, has filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw. In a supplemental pro se brief, Key contests his career offender designation and claims procedural errors during his original sentencing. An independent review of the record, conducted in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, reveals no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Consequently, the court grants counsel's motion to withdraw, denies Key's request for new counsel, and affirms the district court's judgment. This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders v. California Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel filed a brief indicating no grounds for relief and sought to withdraw, which was granted by the court.
Reasoning: His counsel, following Anders v. California, has filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw.
Independent Review under Penson v. Ohiosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record was conducted, revealing no grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, conducted in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, reveals no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Precedential Nature of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited as precedent except as specified by court rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Supplemental Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's pro se brief challenged his career offender status and alleged procedural errors, but no viable grounds were found.
Reasoning: In a supplemental pro se brief, Key contests his career offender designation and claims procedural errors during his original sentencing.
Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of a motion for sentence reduction is affirmed due to lack of viable grounds for relief.
Reasoning: Steve Eric Key appeals the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).