*1 Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

Rudolph Emmanuel Engleton, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 48-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. *2 California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Engleton’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 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

[*] 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).