Court Opinion

ID: 3064272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:16:36.948828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.910288
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 29 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-50124

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00333-DOC

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
MAURICIO ALMENDAREZ-AMAYA,
a.k.a. Mauricio Armendarez,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                     David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Mauricio Almendarez-Amaya appeals from his bench-trial conviction and

84-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California,

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Almendarez-Amaya’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 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 (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 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 § 1326(b)).

      Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED.

                                           2                                     10-50124