Narrative Opinion Summary
Chad Alan Crews appeals the district court’s judgment and 240-month sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Crews' counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. Crews submitted a pro se supplemental brief, while the Government did not respond. An independent review of the briefs and record revealed no grounds for relief on direct appeal. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court's judgment. The decision is not suitable for publication and does not establish precedent per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief and Withdrawal of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Crews' counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating no grounds for appeal, and requested to withdraw from the case.
Reasoning: Crews' counsel filed an Anders brief indicating no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant, Chad Alan Crews, was convicted under these statutes for his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
Reasoning: Chad Alan Crews appeals the district court’s judgment and 240-month sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
Independent Judicial Review of Case Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court conducted an independent review of the briefs and record, finding no grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Reasoning: An independent review of the briefs and record revealed no grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Precedential Decision under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not published and does not serve as precedent.
Reasoning: The decision is not suitable for publication and does not establish precedent per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Supplemental Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Crews filed a pro se supplemental brief after his counsel submitted an Anders brief.
Reasoning: Crews submitted a pro se supplemental brief, while the Government did not respond.