Court Opinion

ID: 9965066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:33.819363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.191730
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-615
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:20-cr-00713-ROS-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ISRRAEL MILLAN III,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Isrrael Millan III appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his jury-trial conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy, mail and wire

fraud, and transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371,

1341, 1343, and 1957. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Millan’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 Millan 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

       However, in light of United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023)

(en banc), which was decided after Millan was sentenced, we vacate the 13

standard conditions of supervised release included in the written judgment and

remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce

any standard conditions it wishes to impose after giving Millan an opportunity to

object. See id. at 656. On remand, the district court is further instructed to

consider Millan’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d).

       Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the

district court.

       AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

                                         2                                       23-615