Case ID: f-appx_613/html/0677-01.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 FRIAS-VIRAMONTES, a.k.a. Jesus Frias, a.k.a. J. Jesus Frias-Viramontes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Offiee of the- U.S-. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas G. Hippert, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas G. Hippert P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jesus Frias-Viramontes, pro se.
    Before: McKEOWN, 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 Frias-Viramontes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for 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), Frias-Viramontes’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 Frias-Viramontes 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.

The record reflects that Frias-Vira-montes pleaded guilty to reentry after deportation, not to attempted reentry after deportation. We remand the case to the district court to correct the judgment.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.