
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Alan COLE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Alan Cole, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Alan Cole, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 07-10227, 07-10228, 07-10229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 28, 2009.
    David P. Petermann, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Rosemarie Valdez, Esq., FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Ricky Alan Cole, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Ricky Alan Cole appeals from his guilty-plea convictions and 180-month aggregate sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Cole’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal because Cole waived his right to appeal.

Accordingly, 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.
     