*1 Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Candice Lewis appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lewis’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 Lewis the *2 opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis for appellate relief. See Graves v. McEwen , 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-16078

[*] 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).