Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Aaron COMBS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-29
Citations: 609 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 14-30225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Aaron COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: ' Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Aaron COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30225.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed June 29, 2015.
Jessica Anne Betley, Assistant U.S., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carl B. Jensen, Jr., Law Office of Carl B. Jensen, Great Falls, MT, Defendant-Appellant.
' Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Matthew Aaron Combs appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Combs'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 Combs 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.