
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dustin OLSEN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-10275.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2009.
    Angela Marie Martinez, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sean Holahan Bruner, Dustin Olsen, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dustin Olsen appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of property. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Olsen’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     