Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lomeli BARREDA, a.k.a. Daniel Barred Lomeli, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-21
Citations: 519 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 12-50093
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lomeli BARREDA, a.k.a. Daniel Barred Lomeli, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 505–505

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lomeli BARREDA, a.k.a. Daniel Barred Lomeli, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50093.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 21, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Lomeli Barreda, Bennettsville, SC, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Daniel Lomeli Barreda appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, 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), Barre-da's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Barreda the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Barreda waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with the exception of an appeal based on the court's calculation of his criminal history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the criminal history category calculated by the court. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir.2009).
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 8 U.S.C. § 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.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.