U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

United States v. Aviles-Padilla

United States v. Aviles-Padilla
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 4, 2010 · Canby, Thomas, Fletcher
381 F. App'x 732

United States v. Aviles-Padilla

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

David Aviles-Padilla appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence imposed for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Aviles-Padilla’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 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 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 § 1326(b). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, all pending motions are DENIED, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED.

**

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.