USA V. BRUCE SANDS, JR., No. 16-50293 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50293 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00489-GW v. MEMORANDUM* BRUCE R. SANDS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Bruce R. Sands, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 135-month aggregate sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. * 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). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sands’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 Sands 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 on direct appeal. However, we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike special condition of supervised release number four on page two of the judgment because this condition was not imposed orally at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 2 16-50293

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.