Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Douglas SHERIFFS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 08-10403
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Douglas SHERIFFS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Douglas SHERIFFS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10403.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Douglas Sheriffs, Anthony, TX, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
James Douglas Sheriffs appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing a six-month sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sheriffs' counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Sheriffs has filed a pro se supplemental 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 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.