Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0778-01.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. Arturo VILLA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 8, 2010.
    James Alan Devitto, Esquire, Liza M. Granoff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Enrique Rene Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Arturo Villa-Hernandez, California City, CA, pro se.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Villa-Hernandez appeals from his 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Villa-Hernandez’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 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.

The record discloses that the appellant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to delete the reference to a plea agreement and appeal waiver. The district court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.