Case ID: f-appx_463/html/0688-01.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. Carlos Alberto POLINO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10578.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
    Robert A. Bork, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Camille W. Damm, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Chad Albert Bowers, Esquire, The Law Office of Chad A. Bowers, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for DefendanL-Appellant.
    Carlos Alberto Polino, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Alberto Polino appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence imposed for being a deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, 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), Polino’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 Polino the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. A pro se supplemental brief has been filed. No 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 arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

We remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike the supervised release special condition which prohibits Polino from possessing a firearm or any other dangerous weapon because this condition was included in the written judgment but not imposed at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

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.