United States of America v. Robin M. Lee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBIN M. LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10553
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00860-LEK-5
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 3, 2015**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Robin Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
order of restitution, conviction, and 105-month sentence for conspiracy to
participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
FILED
AUG 05 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 --

738 (1967), Lee’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lee has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and the appellee has filed an answering brief.
Lee waived his right to appeal his conviction. He also waived the right to
appeal his sentence, with the exception of his right to challenge the amount of
restitution. 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 as to
the amount of restitution ordered by the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3);
United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). We therefore affirm
as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal
waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
We decline to review Lee’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct
appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011)
(recognizing that we generally do not review claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal). We leave open the possibility that Lee might raise an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings. See id.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2

-- 2 of 2 --