
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Piersha WOOLRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10144
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 13, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Heather Mardel Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Grant- B. Rabenn, Attorney, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Piersha Woolridge, Pro Se
    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

Piersha Woolridge appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges her guilty-plea convictions and total sentence of 56 months in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, 25 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and two counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Woolridge’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 Wool-ridge 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     