Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ROCHA-ENCARNACION, a.k.a. Esteban Rocha-Encarnacion, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-05
Citations: 407 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 09-50435
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose ROCHA-ENCARNACION, a.k.a. Esteban Rocha-Encarnacion, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 239–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose ROCHA-ENCARNACION, a.k.a. Esteban Rocha-Encarnacion, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-50435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
Robert J. Keenan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Rocha-Encarnacion, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Jose Rocha-Encarnacion appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for being an illegal 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), Roeha-Encarnacioris 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)).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, 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.