USA V. DAVID GUIDRY, No. 18-10088 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10088 D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00027-JAM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID L. GUIDRY, AKA David Guidry, AKA David Louis Guidry, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. David L. Guidry appeals from the district court’s order revoking his conditional discharge and remanding him to the custody of the Attorney General for commitment to a suitable facility under 18 U.S.C. § 4243(g). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Guidry’s counsel has filed a brief * 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). stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We treat Guidry’s letter, submitted at Docket Entry No. 16, as a pro se supplemental brief. No 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. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Any other pending requests are DENIED. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10088
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.
