Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erick SALAZAR-SALAZAR, aka Jaime Montepeque, aka Moises Salazar-Canstu, aka Moises Muy Canastu, aka Erik Salazar, aka Moises Canastu, aka Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 918
Docket Number: No. 04-50126; D.C. No. CR-97-00601-R-01
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Erick SALAZAR-SALAZAR, aka Jaime Montepeque, aka Moises Salazar-Canstu, aka Moises Muy Canastu, aka Erik Salazar, aka Moises Canastu, aka Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 918–919

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Erick SALAZAR-SALAZAR, aka Jaime Montepeque, aka Moises Salazar-Canstu, aka Moises Muy Canastu, aka Erik Salazar, aka Moises Canastu, aka Erik Salazar-Salas, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50126.
D.C. No. CR-97-00601-R-01.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Teresa S. Mack, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey H. Rutherford, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Erick Salazar-Salazar appeals his 24-month sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised release. Counsel of record for the appellant, Jeffrey H. Rutherford, Esq., filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and we deny the motion.
Pursuant to our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there is a non-frivolous issue for appeal.
We vacate the sentence and remand to the district court to state its general reasons for its imposition of the consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 545-46 (9th Cir.1990).
If upon re-sentencing appellant files a new notice of appeal, this panel shall retain jurisdiction over the new appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.