Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0582-01.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. Jesus Imaldo ARIAS-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10206
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jesus Imaldo Arias-Lopez, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Imaldo Arias-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for being an alien in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Arias-Lopez’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 Arias-Lopez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Arias-Lopez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 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 issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988.

We remand the case to the district court with instructions to delete “firearm” from the description of the offense and to amend the judgment to reflect the correct Bureau of Prisons’s Register Number for Arias-Lopez, which is 51277-408.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.