Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Clair AIKENS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-09
Citations: 370 F. App'x 807
Docket Number: No. 06-50199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Clair AIKENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 807–808

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Clair AIKENS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50199.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 9, 2010.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Janet C. Hudson, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerald Clair Aiken, Karyn H. Bucur, Esq., Sheridan, OR, Karyn H. Bucur, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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
Gerald Clair Akens appeals from the 130-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to conspiracy to manufacture more than 100 grams of actual phencyclidine ("PCP"), to aid and abet the manufacture of more than 100 grams of actual PCP, and to distribute more than 100 grams of actual PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Akens' counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has filed an answering brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.