United States v. Michael Devaughn ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50249
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:87-cr-00886-TJH-2
v.
MICHAEL OWEN DEVAUGHN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the revocation of supervised release, as well as the time-served sentence
and six-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), DeVaughn’s counsel has filed a brief
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
*
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).
counsel of record. DeVaughn 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.
DeVaughn’s pro se contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the
supervised release revocation is unavailing, and his remaining pro se arguments are
not supported by the record. To the extent DeVaughn 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).
DeVaughn’s pro se requests to appoint substitute counsel and to submit
further supplemental briefing are denied.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50249