Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Myran FRANKSON, a.k.a. Derek White, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-28
Citations: 585 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 13-10619
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Myran FRANKSON, a.k.a. Derek White, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 734–734

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Myran FRANKSON, a.k.a. Derek White, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10619.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Nov. 28, 2014.
Lacy Cooper, Assistant U.S., Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Derrick Myran Frankson, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Derrick Myran Frankson appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 27-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Frankson'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 Frankson 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.
Frankson's pro se motion filed May 9, 2014, to relieve counsel and for permission to file his own brief is DENIED as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.