Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwan Eugene BROWN, a.k.a. Antwon Eugene Brown, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: No. 10-50422
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwan Eugene BROWN, a.k.a. Antwon Eugene Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwan Eugene BROWN, a.k.a. Antwon Eugene Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
Douglas F. McCormick, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Randolph Kurt Driggs, Esquire, Anaheim Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Antwan Eugene Brown appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Brown'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 Brown 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.