
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Lane GIBSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10118.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 27, 2014.
    Mark S. Kokanovich, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick Edward McGillicuddy, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Patrick E. McGilli-cuddy, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, 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

Douglas Lane Gibson appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gibson’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 Gibson 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.
     