Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Lee CLAUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-31
Citations: 372 F. App'x 805
Docket Number: No. 09-10075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Lee CLAUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 805–805

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Lee CLAUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 31, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Michael J. Bresnehan, Esquire, Michael J. Bresnehan PC, Tempe, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, 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
Donald Lee Claus appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 210-month sentence imposed for knowingly receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Claus' 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. 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, 80-81, 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.