Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0634-01.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. Raphael CARRASCO, a.k.a. Rafael Carrasco, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50423.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Julie Jane Shemitz, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Diane E. Berley, Diane E. Berley, Attorney at Law, West Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Raphael Carrasco, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raphael Carrasco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carrasco’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Carrasco 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; therefore, we affirm the sentence. The record reflects that Carras-co pleaded guilty only to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the reference to heroin.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.