USA V. KYLE BERTRAM, No. 14-30220 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 01 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-30220 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00093-JLQ v. MEMORANDUM* KYLE ALLEN BERTRAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Kyle Allen Bertram appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 84-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent 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), * 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). Bertram’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 Bertram the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief has been filed. The government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. 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 Bertram’s conviction. We, therefore, grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to Bertram’s conviction. Bertram waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Bertram’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 14-30220

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.