Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry N. ODEGAARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 390 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 08-10462
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry N. ODEGAARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry N. ODEGAARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10462.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed July 30, 2010.
Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S., USH-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, FPDHI-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, Barry N. Odegaard, Butner, NC, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Barry N. Odegaard appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 60-month sentence for illegal distribution of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Odegaard's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81, 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.