USA V. WILLIAM KING, No. 19-30282 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED DEC 7 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-30282 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00082-SLG-1 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM PATRICK KING, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. William Patrick King appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 420-month sentence for sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), King’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there * 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). are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided King the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. King waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. We remand, however, for the district court to consider striking from the judgment the potentially erroneous reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, which may be inconsistent with the plea agreement. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions. 2 19-30282

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.