Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joey Deshaun CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-21
Citations: 377 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 09-10089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joey Deshaun CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joey Deshaun CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 21, 2010.
Kimberly M. Frayn, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur L. Allen, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Joey Deshaun Clark, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, 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
Joey Deshaun Clark appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sen tence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clark'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. Clark's letter, received on March 10, 2010, is deemed filed. We construe the letter as a pro se supplemental brief. No 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, 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.