Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudyard C. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-27
Citations: 435 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 09-10312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudyard C. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 601–601

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudyard C. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10312.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed May 27, 2011.
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Kathleen Genevieve Williamson, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Rudyard C. Williams, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rudyard C. Williams appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable 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. Williams has filed pro se supplemental briefs and the appellee has filed an answering brief.
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 grounds for relief on direct appeal.
We grant the government's motion to strike factual allegations in William's pro se reply brief that are not part of the district court record. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-26 (9th Cir.2003).
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.