Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Roy YOUNG, d.b.a. Walter R. Young, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-18
Citations: 648 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: Nos. 14-10522, 14-10523
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Roy YOUNG, d.b.a. Walter R. Young, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Roy YOUNG, d.b.a. Walter R. Young, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14-10522, 14-10523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 18, 2016.
Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc J. Victor, Chandler, AZ, for Defen-dantr-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this ease is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Walter Roy Young appeals his jury-trial conviction and 18-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and the revocation of probation and 12-month sentence imposed thereupon. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Young's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Young 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.