The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-30188•United States of America v. Chester Evans Davis
13-30188Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 18, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHESTER EVANS DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30188
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00109-SI-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Chester Evans Davis appeals his jury-trial conviction and 97-month
sentence for evasion of payment of taxes and evasion of tax assessments, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; failure to file corporate tax returns, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 7203; and obstructing the due administration of the internal revenue
FILED
MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), appointed 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. The
district court did not clearly err in finding that Davis was competent to stand trial.
See United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
13-30188 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.