Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reiordan D. JONES, a.k.a. Sly, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 469 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 08-30191
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reiordan D. JONES, a.k.a. Sly, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reiordan D. JONES, a.k.a. Sly, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael William Dion, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carol Elewski, Esquire, Tumwater, WA, Reiordan D. Jones, USP Victorville, Ade-lanto, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Reiordan D. Jones appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 180-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jones'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. 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.