*1 Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Arredondo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 168-month concurrent sentences for distribution of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California , *2 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Arredondo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Arredondo 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50078
[*] 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).