Andrews
United States v. Andrews
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Amel Andrews appeals his conviction and 92-month sentence following his guilty plea to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d). Defendant’s attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Andrews has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.
The Anders brief identifies and rejects four potential issues. First, counsel correctly acknowledges that there is no indication that Andrews’ guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976-77 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing district court’s compliance with Rule 11).
Second, counsel concludes that the district court provided an adequate statement of reasons for Andrews’ sentence. The district court’s explanation for sentencing Andrews to the low end of a 23-month guideline range was more than sufficient. See United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(1) requires a statement of reasons only where the guideline range is greater than 24 months).
Third, counsel raises, and correctly rejects as an issue for appeal, the district court’s…