Court Opinion

ID: 8628010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 15:00:09.541366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:40.629772
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Vincente Velazquez appeals from the district court’s order determining that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence, following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Velazquez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and containing 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.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.