
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marlon R. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10387.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2009.
    
    Filed May 26, 2009.
    Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Shari Kaufman, Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Marlon R. Lee, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marlon R. Lee appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his 120-month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lee’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government did not file 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.

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.
     