Case ID: f-appx_504/html/0613-01.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. Silvano Morales FLORES, a.k.a. Silvano Flores Morales, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., James Michael Left, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Silvano Morales Flores, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App-P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silvano Morales Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Morales Flores’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Morales Flores 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. However, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to delete the incorrect reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and replace it with the proper statute of conviction, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In addition, the court should strike the special conditions of supervised release, which are only applicable in cases in which the court imposes a fine or restitution. See C.D. Cal. General Order 01-05.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

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