Texte intégral
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES JAMES WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 21-30068
21-30069
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cr-00380-RSM-1
2:07-cr-00426-RSM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Charles James Williams appeals from the
district court’s judgments revoking supervised release and challenges the 24-month
concurrent sentences imposed. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
* 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
FEB 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 21-30068 & 21-30069
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Williams has filed a
pro se supplemental opening brief, and the government has filed an answering
brief.
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.
Williams’s pro se arguments are not supported by the record or the law. His
arguments concerning his state court proceedings may not be raised in this appeal
from the revocation of his federal supervised release term. To the extent Williams
seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not reach that
claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 2011).
The government’s motion to take judicial notice, and counsel’s motion to
withdraw, are GRANTED. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --