Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Carmine REZEK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-26
Citations: 455 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 10-10207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Carmine REZEK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Carmine REZEK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 26, 2011.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Anthem, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Anthony Carmine Rezek, pro se.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Anthony Carmine Rezek appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 84-month sentence for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rezek's 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 the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and no 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.