Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0562-01.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. Rafael MURO-BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 15, 2010.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Antoine F. Raphael, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Thomas Paul Sleisenger, Law Offices of Thomas P. Sleisenger, Los Angeles, CA, Rafael Muro-Bonilla, USP-United States Penitentiary, Adelanto, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Rafael Muro-Bonilla appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, 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), Rocha-Lopez’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. 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

Upon remand, the district court judge should strike condition 4 of the terms of supervised release from the judgment because he did not announce it during the oral pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED; and the case is REMANDED with instructions to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.