Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery Joseph HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 15-10484
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery Joseph HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery Joseph HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10484
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
' Avery Joseph Hendricks, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Avery Joseph Hendricks appeals from the revocation of probation and 25-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hendricks'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 Hendricks 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. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation and sentence.
We remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that Hendricks admitted Allegations A and C, not Allegation B.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.