
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Emory McDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 17, 2014.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Gregory Gruber, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Emory McDowell, pro se.
    Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, 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 Emory McDowell appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), McDowell’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 McDowell 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.
     