MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Bisher appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 *343 motion. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Bisher’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Bisher has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No 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. This court has concluded that the Controlled Substances Act does not violate the Tenth Amendment, see Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir. 2007), and has rejected challenges to the constitutionality of Title 21, see United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1250 & n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996). This court has also rejected challenges to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 563 (9th Cir. 1996).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.