Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allen Earl DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-18
Citations: 202 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 05-30155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Allen Earl DANIEL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Allen Earl DANIEL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-30155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
Decided Sept. 18, 2006.
Kris A. McLean, Esq., Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
John P. Rhodes, Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, Allen Earl Daniel, Victor, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Allen Earl Daniel appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 82-day term of imprisonment. Daniel was originally convicted of four counts of robbery of a bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Daniel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Daniel has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has not filed an answering 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 grounds for relief.
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw, and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.