
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lionel IRVING, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-30644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2008.
    Gregory A. Gruber, Esq., USTA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott the Hoge Building, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lionel Irving appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 204-month sentence for distribution of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Irving’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 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.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that Irving was convicted for distribution of cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, rather than for two counts of distribution of cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to correct the judgment).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     