Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben SETTLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 633 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 15-10347
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben SETTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben SETTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10347.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Salina Kanai Althof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDHI-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Ruben Settle appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence for possession -with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Settle'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 Settle 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, 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.