Strickland

MEMORANDUM **

William James Strickland appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Strickland’s counsel has filed a brief stating that she finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our examination of the briefs and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 , 109 S.Ct. 346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Aecordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. We decline to address Strickland’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994).