USA V. RONALD FELTS, No. 12-10261 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 17 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-10261 D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00347-DAE v. MEMORANDUM * RONALD LEROY FELTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Ronald Leroy Felts appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 300-month sentence for receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) and (b)(2). Pursuant to * 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). Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Felts s 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 provided Felts 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 as to Felts s conviction. We accordingly affirm Felts s conviction. Felts waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Felts s appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-10261
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.
