Case ID: f-appx_498/html/0744-01.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. Andres Aguirre PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50514.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Nicholas A. Pilgrim, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andres Aguirre Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to aid and abet the manufacture of methamphetamine and to possess and distribute pseudoephedrine knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it will be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(l)(A)(viii) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Perez’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 Perez 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 that it strike special condition of supervised release number six on page two of the judgment because the condition was included in the written judgment but not imposed orally at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).

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.