United States of America v. Glen Wilson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GLEN WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10327
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00657-JAT-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Glen Wilson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
revocation of supervised release and 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wilson’s counsel has filed
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
* 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
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10327
as counsel of record. Wilson has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No 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. Contrary
to Wilson’s argument in his pro se brief, the record shows that the district court
was aware of the Guidelines range, and that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. Moreover, the court adequately explained the above-
Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008). Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of
the circumstances, including Wilson’s history on supervision. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --