Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0895-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everado ZAVALA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50472.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Priya Sopori, Assistant U.S., Sheri Pym, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, Everado Zavala-Ortiz, U.S. Penitentiary (Lee), Jonesville, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Everado Zavala-Ortiz appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 30-month sentence imposed for possessing contraband in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Zavala-Ortiz’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.

We affirm, but remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to reflect that Zavala-Ortiz was convicted by jury trial, rather than by guilty plea.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.