Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Ricardo CLEMENT, AKA Ricco Ricardo Clement, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-28
Citations: 329 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 08-50322
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Ricardo CLEMENT, AKA Ricco Ricardo Clement, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Ricardo CLEMENT, AKA Ricco Ricardo Clement, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 08-50322.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009 .
Filed July 28, 2009.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce Hamilton Searby, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, Ricardo Clement, Hollywood, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo Clement appeals from the judgment revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of 30 days imprisonment and 35 months supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clement'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.