United States v. Roberto Chavez-Valencia , 582 F. App'x 764 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 10 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10076
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00231-DCB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ROBERTO CHAVEZ-VALENCIA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 25, 2014**
    Before:        HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Roberto Chavez-Valencia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence imposed for
    attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    , and aggravated
    identity theft, in violation of U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Chavez-Valencia’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 Chavez-Valencia 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.
    Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
    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 reference to section 1326(b)(2). See United States v.
    Herrera–Blanco, 
    232 F.3d 715
    , 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to
    delete the reference to section 1326(b)). The district court is further directed to
    modify the judgment to reflect a one-year term of supervised release as to Count 2.
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (b)(3).
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
    2                                     13-10076
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10076

Citation Numbers: 582 F. App'x 764

Judges: Hawkins, Tallman, Nguyen

Filed Date: 7/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024