Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Paul HAWK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-20
Citations: 411 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 07-30067
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Paul HAWK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Paul HAWK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Miyake, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zenon P. Olbertz, Esq., Law Offices of Zenon P. Olbertz, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Christopher Paul Hawk appeals from the district court's decision on remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Sen tencing Guidelines were advisory. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hawk'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 with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief and Hawk has filed a supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Hawk's request for new counsel is denied.
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 provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.