USA V. FRANCIS CHANDLER, III, No. 14-10238 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10238 D.C. No. 1:12-cr-01258-SOM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* FRANCIS E. CHANDLER, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2015** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. Francis Chandler III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the order of restitution and the sentence of 37 months in prison and three years supervised release for making a false claim against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287, and filing false retaliatory liens against government * 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). officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chandler’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 Chandler the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Chandler waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of his right to challenge the restitution order and the part of the judgment concerning supervised release. 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 as to the restitution order or supervised release. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. 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
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.
