
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HO, a.k.a. Mayan2012, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50205.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Joey Lynn Blanch, Robert Edward Dug-dale, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Barry L. Morris, Barry L. Morris, Attorney at Law, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Ho appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the lifetime term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to advertise, transport, receive, distribute, solicit, and possess child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ho’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 Ho 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 as to Ho’s lifetime term of supervised release or the conditions of supervised release.

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.
     