
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Erskine TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 08-50886, 08-50389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2009.
    Mark Aveis, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Victor R. Cannon, Esquire, Michael Ta-naka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence Erskine Taylor, FCIL — Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, 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, Lawrence Erskine Taylor appeals from the aggregate 240-month sentence imposed upon a remand for resentencing, following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i), and possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Taylor’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.

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.
     