*1 Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Martin Ibarra-Ozuna appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the supervised release conditions imposed on remand for resentencing.
Ibarra-Ozuna ’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Appellant *2 has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no non-frivolous arguments to be made on direct appeal.
In light of counsel’s intention to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Ibarra-Ozuna, c ounsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-3913
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).