Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius Ayodole WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 227 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 06-50290
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius Ayodole WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius Ayodole WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50290.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Damian J. Martinez, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sung Bae Park, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cornelius Ayodole Williams appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following a remand for re-sentencing under the correct version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Williams's counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to with draw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, appellee has filed an answering brief, and appellant has filed a reply brief.
Our examination of the briefs and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel's motions to withdraw and to be relieved as counsel, DENY all other pending motions, and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.