Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Markay LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-04
Citations: 369 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 08-50020
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Markay LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 808–808

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Markay LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 4, 2010.
Shawn Jeffery Nelson, Special Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip Deitch, Esquire, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Markay Lewis appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 105-month sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lewis' 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.