Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0620-01.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. Vincente VELAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Douglas A. Axel, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David R. Reed, Esq., Law Office of David R. Reed, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vincente Velazquez appeals from the district court’s order determining that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Velazquez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and containing 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 grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.