Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0624-01.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. Jose GARCIA-CARDENAS, a.k.a. Jose Carlos Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10476.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 24, 2009.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Taylor Shannon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jose Garcia-Cardenas, pro se.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Garcia-Cardenas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after 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), Garcia-Cardenas’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.

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, and the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

We remand the case to the district court' with instructions that it delete from the judgment the erroneous reference to a finding that Garcia-Cardenas waived his right to appeal or to collaterally attack the judgment. See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Garcia-Cardenas, 555 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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.