
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TUAN A. VU, AKA Chico, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30223
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 8, 2017  Seattle, Washington
    Filed December 14, 2017
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sarah Kate Vaughan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Tuan A, Vu, Pro Se
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Yuan Vu (“Vu”) appeals his conviction for multiple counts of possession, distribution, and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances following a nine-day jury trial. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Vu has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Vu has also filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he largely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and, in particular, the credibility of a co-defendant who testified against him. No government brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no meritorious issues for appeal. We have also considered the arguments asserted in Vu’s pro se supplement brief and find them to be without merit.' The jury was given the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses, and when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     