FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 14 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30223
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00120-JCC-2
v.
TUAN A. VU, AKA Chico, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Yuan Vu (“Vu”) appeals his conviction for multiple counts of
possession, distribution, and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances following
a nine-day jury trial. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel
*
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).
for Vu has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Vu has also filed a pro se supplemental brief in which
he largely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and, in particular, the credibility
of a co-defendant who testified against him. No government brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
83-84 (1988), discloses no meritorious issues for appeal. We have also considered the
arguments asserted in Vu’s pro se supplement brief and find them to be without merit.
The jury was given the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses, and when
reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2