You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Lee

Citation: 325 F. App'x 619Docket: No. 08-10387

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 26, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Marlon R. Lee appeals the denial of his motion to reduce a 120-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His counsel submitted a brief indicating no arguable grounds for relief and requested to withdraw from representation. Lee also submitted a pro se supplemental brief, while the government refrained from filing a response. An independent review of the record, following Penson v. Ohio, shows no viable grounds for appeal. Consequently, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the district court's order is affirmed. This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Counsel's Withdrawal from Representation

Application: Counsel submitted a brief indicating no arguable grounds for relief and requested withdrawal, which was granted after an independent review found no viable grounds for appeal.

Reasoning: His counsel submitted a brief indicating no arguable grounds for relief and requested to withdraw from representation.

Independent Review of the Record

Application: Following the precedent set by Penson v. Ohio, an independent review was conducted, confirming the absence of viable grounds for appeal.

Reasoning: An independent review of the record, following Penson v. Ohio, shows no viable grounds for appeal.

Non-Precedential Decision

Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as provided by circuit rules.

Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Sentence Reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Application: The appellant's motion to reduce his sentence was denied, as there were no arguable grounds for relief under the statute.

Reasoning: Marlon R. Lee appeals the denial of his motion to reduce a 120-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).