
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CORNEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30163.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 5, 2016.
    
    Filed May 9, 2016.
    Tara Elliott, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Joshua Van de Wetering, Van de Wetering Law Offices, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Cornejo appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Cornejo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Cor-nejo 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, 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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     