Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ALVAREZ-ADAME, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 10-50161
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ALVAREZ-ADAME, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 633–635

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel ALVAREZ-ADAME, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Christopher Alexander, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher R. McFadden, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerson Simon, Esquire, San Marino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Miguel Alvarez-Adame appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following his conviction for being a deported alien found 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), Alvarez-Adame's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Alvarez-Adame filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government filed an answering brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
We decline to reconsider AlvarezAdame's challenge to the validity of the underlying deportation order because this court already decided that issue in United States v. Alvarez-Adame, 346 Fed.Appx. 169 (9th Cir.2009). See United States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1999) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reeonsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
In accordance with United States v. Riverar-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 reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrerar-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED and REMLANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.