Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad MAJIDI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: Nos. 14-50217, 14-50220
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad MAJIDI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad MAJIDI, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14-50217, 14-50220.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 16, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Aron Ketchel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Yolanda Barrera, Esquire, Trial, Law Office of Yolanda Barrera, Monrovia, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Mohammad Majidi appeals from the district court's judgments and challenges the 18-month concurrent sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Majidi's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Majidi has filed pro se supplemental briefs, and the government has filed an answering brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Majidi's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.