Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Scott MIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-21
Citations: 388 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 09-30317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Scott MIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Scott MIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30317.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 21, 2010.
Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Michael Wayne Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Coeur D’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Brian Scott Mixon appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sen tence for possession of sexually explicit images of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and from his forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 2253. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mixon'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.