Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dashon Lavar RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-25
Citations: 362 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 08-50453
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dashon Lavar RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dashon Lavar RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50453.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael Jay Stern, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Dashon Lavar Richardson, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, 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
Dashon Lavar Richardson appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Richardson's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a pro se motion to "consolidate issues and facts within his motion." The government has filed a motion to summarily affirm the conviction and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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.
The government's motion is DENIED. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). The appellant's pro se motion is also DENIED.
Counsel's motion to withdraw' is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND sua sponte for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that the term of supervised release is five years for Count 4 and three years for Count 7, to run concurrently. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)-(C).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.