USA V. SEAN SCHRAMMECK, No. 16-30171 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30171 D.C. No. 9:16-cr-00003-DLC v. MEMORANDUM* SEAN PATRICK SCHRAMMECK, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sean Patrick Schrammeck appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month-and-one-day sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Schrammeck’s * 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 has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have considered Schrammeck’s pro se supplemental brief, which the Clerk is instructed to file. 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 as to Schrammeck’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Schrammeck’s conviction. Schrammeck waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Schrammeck’s appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). In his pro se supplemental brief, Schrammeck contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Schrammeck’s claim, which is based on an alleged conflict of interest arising out of trial counsel’s bar membership, is meritless. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Schrammeck’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel and to stay these proceedings pending appointment of new counsel is DENIED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-30171
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
