NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10327 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00657-JAT-1 v. MEMORANDUM* GLEN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Glen Wilson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release and 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wilson’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). as counsel of record. Wilson 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Contrary to Wilson’s argument in his pro se brief, the record shows that the district court was aware of the Guidelines range, and that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Moreover, the court adequately explained the above- Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Wilson’s history on supervision. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-10327