United States v. 2020-12-07 | 19-30282 | USA V. WILLIAM KING | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM PATRICK KING,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30282

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00082-SLG-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

William Patrick King appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 420-month sentence for sexual
exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), King’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

DEC 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-30282
are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
We have provided King the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro
se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
King waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
We remand, however, for the district court to consider striking from the
judgment the potentially erroneous reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, which may be
inconsistent with the plea agreement.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions.