Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-03
Citations: 75 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 02-50625; D.C. No. CR-02-00615-AHM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Allen WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-50625.
D.C. No. CR-02-00615-AHM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
Decided Sept. 3, 2003.
Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory A. Lesser, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office Riverside, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Pedro V. Castillo, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable f°r decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Allen Williams appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 15-month sentence for fraudulent transactions with access devices and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) and 1344.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Williams has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Williams has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.