Court Opinion

ID: 8472467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 13:04:53.812572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:21.211072
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Marshall Charles Richmond appeals from the district court’s orders denying his pro se motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Richmond’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and no 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.
*337Accordingly, 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.