
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Husam SAMARAH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 13, 2010.
    Peter A. Frandsen, Esq. Fax, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Phillip I. Bronson, Esq., Law Offices of Phillip I. Bronson, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Husam Samarah appeals from the 87-month sentence reimposed following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Samarah’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Samarah has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief and reply brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

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.

Samarah’s pro se motion for admission of new evidence is DENIED.

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