Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge RAGGOZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 07-50077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge RAGGOZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge RAGGOZA-FRANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los An geles, CA, Brent G. Tabacchi, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leon Peterson, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Raggoza-Franeo appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 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), Raggoza-Franco's 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 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 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.
AFFIRMED; 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.