Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Scott JAMES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 331 F. App'x 543
Docket Number: No. 08-10311
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Scott JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 543–543

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Scott JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10311.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Randolph Scott James, CCM Phoenix Community Corrections Office, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Randolph Scott James appeals from the six-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), James' counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.