Court Opinion

ID: 9407944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 21:00:42.403954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.960295
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-10009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                D.C. No. 4:21-cr-03296-SHR-EJM-1
                Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS PLAZA, Jr.,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                     Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Luis Plaza, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for smuggling goods from the

United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Plaza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

      *
             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).
grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Plaza 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 as to

Plaza’s conviction, 60-month custodial sentence, and 3-year term of supervised

release. Concerning the conditions of Plaza’s supervised release, we find no

arguable issues except as to special conditions 1 and 4, which involve an

unconstitutional delegation of authority under United States v. Nishida, 53 F.4th

1144, 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2022). We accordingly vacate those conditions and

remand for the district court to modify them in a manner consistent with Nishida.

As to all other issues, we affirm.

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions.

                                         2                                      23-10009