*1 Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Mark Anthony Simmons appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Simmons’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of *2 record. We have provided Simmons 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 17-10047

[*] 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).