
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudolph GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-50651.
    D.C. No. CR-01-00193-DDP.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 15, 2003.
    Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., David K. Will-ingham, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Firdaus Dordi, FPD, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rudolph Garcia appeals the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 40-month term of imprisonment. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     