Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Phinazee ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 14-30107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Phinazee ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 667–668

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Phinazee ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30107.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Geoffrey A. Barrow, Assistant U.S., An-nemarie Sgarlata, Kelly A. Zusman, DOJ, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert M. Stone, Robert Stone, Attorney at Law P.C., Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Phinazee Elliott, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
James Phinazee Elliott appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 37-month, sentence for conspiracy to distribute oxyco-done and to use communication facilities, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 843(b), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Elliott's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Elliott has filed 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
We decline to address on direct appeal Elliott's argument that trial and sentencing counsel provided ineffective assistance. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.