NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 21-30068 21-30069 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:07-cr-00380-RSM-1 v. 2:07-cr-00426-RSM-1 CHARLES JAMES WILLIAMS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2022** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Charles James Williams appeals from the district court’s judgments revoking supervised release and challenges the 24-month concurrent sentences imposed. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for

* 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). relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Williams has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

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.

Williams’s pro se arguments are not supported by the record or the law. His arguments concerning his state court proceedings may not be raised in this appeal from the revocation of his federal supervised release term. To the extent Williams seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not reach that claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

The government’s motion to take judicial notice, and counsel’s motion to withdraw, are GRANTED. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-30068 & 21-30069