NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CANDICE LEWIS, No. 13-16078
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00423-TLN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WALTER MILLER,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Candice Lewis appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Lewis’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 Lewis the
*
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).
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis
for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16078