Court Opinion

ID: 9945867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 18:01:03.498435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.999579
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          FEB 28 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.    23-10007

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00044-KJM-1

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JAMIE RICHARDSON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Jamie Richardson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea convictions, time-served sentence, and 36-month term of supervised

release for use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking offense,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and possession of a die and plate designed to

      *
             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).
render a drug into a counterfeit substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(5).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Richardson’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 Richardson the opportunity to

file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief

has been filed.

      Richardson waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

      However, we remand for the district court to make Special Condition 1 in

the written judgment match the first special condition included in the presentence

report, which the court adopted “as written” during the oral pronouncement of

sentence. See United States v. Jones, 696 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2012) (where

there is a direct conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence

and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls). On remand, the

district court must also correct the written judgment to reflect that the offenses of

conviction are Class D felonies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4).

                                           2                                    23-10007
     Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

     DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions to correct the written

judgment.

                                  3                            23-10007