Court Opinion

ID: 8652701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 21:08:30.234755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:35.830008
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Matthew Evans Dowd appeals from the district court’s determination, following remand pursuant to United States v. Ame-line, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Dowd’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 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 order is AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.