Narrative Opinion Summary
Omar Lucas appeals the district court’s imposition of a 10-year term of supervised release following his guilty plea for distribution of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His counsel, following the guidelines of Anders v. California, has submitted a brief indicating no grounds for appeal and has filed a motion to withdraw. Lucas was given the opportunity to submit a pro se supplemental brief, but none was filed. An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, reveals no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The motion to withdraw by counsel is granted, and the district court's judgment is affirmed. The ruling is not published and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief Submission and Counsel Withdrawalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel submitted an Anders brief indicating no grounds for appeal and filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted by the court.
Reasoning: His counsel, following the guidelines of Anders v. California, has submitted a brief indicating no grounds for appeal and has filed a motion to withdraw.
Imposition of Supervised Release under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court imposed a 10-year term of supervised release following the defendant's guilty plea for distribution of crack cocaine.
Reasoning: Omar Lucas appeals the district court’s imposition of a 10-year term of supervised release following his guilty plea for distribution of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Independent Record Review for Direct Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record, conducted in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, reveals no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Precedential Nature of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is not published and does not serve as precedent, except as specified by the relevant circuit rule.
Reasoning: The ruling is not published and does not serve as precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Opportunity for Pro Se Supplemental Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was given the opportunity to submit a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.
Reasoning: Lucas was given the opportunity to submit a pro se supplemental brief, but none was filed.