Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel HARO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 972
Docket Number: No. 07-50141
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel HARO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 972–973

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel HARO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Mark A. Young, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daphne Sykes Scott, Esq., Long Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joel Haro appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Haro's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no. arguable 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 with the exception of Condition 7 on page 2 of the judgment, prohibiting Haro from associating with any member of a "disruptive group." We remand to the district court to excise this portion of Condition 7 from Haro's supervised release conditions pursuant to United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.