Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Davis
584 F. App'x 843
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2014-09-30
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- affirming district court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 15
- finding the district court did not err by applying Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 8 Section 2254 Cases to federal prisoner’s § 2241 petition
- affirming district 9 court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 in dismissing a Section 2241 petition
- affirming district 8 court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 in dismissing a Section 2241 petition
- affirming district court’s 21
- application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition
- finding no error when district court applied 17 Rule 4 to Section 2241 habeas petition
- affirming district court’s 7 application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Davis. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 39 opinions
MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated appeals, James S. Davis appeals from the district court’s judgments revoking supervised release and the three-month, concurrent custodial sentences imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Davis’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Davis the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.