Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 16-50381
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50381
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 13, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Joel Espinoza, Pro Se
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joel Espinoza appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his 120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Espinoza's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Espinoza has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
However, the judgment does not accurately reflect the statute of conviction. We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that the conviction is for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding, sua sponte to correct the judgment).
Counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.