Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Collins Ray RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30192

Decided: February 24, 2021

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee Collins Ray Russell, Pro Se


Collins Ray Russell appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Russell's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Russell has filed 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Contrary to Russell's argument in his pro se supplemental brief, the 30-month sentence was authorized by the applicable statute and the Guidelines. In addition, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Russell's breach of the court's trust, the need to protect the public, and the similarity between the original offense and the conduct underlying the revocation. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). The record does not support Russell's remaining pro se arguments.

Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.


Copied to clipboard