United States v. Taylor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 2 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2838 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:16-cr-01377-ROS-2 v. MEMORANDUM* THINTINUS NOSETH TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 20, 2024** Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Thintinus Noseth Taylor appeals from the district court’s order revoking supervised release and imposing a sentence of imprisonment of 6 months and 2 days, to be followed by 24 months’ supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief stating that * 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). there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Taylor 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. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 2 24-2838