Headdress
United States v. Headdress
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Dale Michael Headdress appeals his conviction and three-year sentence of probation following his guilty plea to one count of making a false statement to an agency of the executive branch of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 . 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 *526 (1967), and Headdress has submitted a supplemental pro se letter-brief.
Counsel has identified and properly rejected as issues for appeal (1) the validity of Headdress’ guilty plea and (2) the legality of his sentence. There is no indication in the record that Headdress’ guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 976-77 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing de novo district court’s compliance with Rule 11 and seeing no error).
Headdress’ sentencing was procedurally proper and in compliance with the statute of conviction and the Sentencing Guidelines. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a) (setting 5-year maximum penalty); U.S.S.G. §§ 5B1.1(a)(1), 5B1.2(a)(l) and 5B1.3 (authorizing probation, its length and conditions). Headdress’ sentence offers no basis…