United States v. Andres Perez , 498 F. App'x 744 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           NOV 20 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 11-50514
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00475-R
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ANDRES AGUIRRE PEREZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 13, 2012 **
    Before:      CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Andres Aguirre Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
    120-month sentence for conspiracy to aid and abet the manufacture of
    methamphetamine and to possess and distribute pseudoephedrine knowing or
    *
    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).
    having reasonable cause to believe it will be used to manufacture
    methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846.
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Perez’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 Perez 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. However,
    we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike special
    condition of supervised release number six on page two of the judgment because
    the condition was included in the written judgment but not imposed orally at
    sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 
    463 F.3d 1040
    , 1042 (9th Cir. 2006);
    United States v. Hicks, 
    997 F.2d 594
    , 597 (9th Cir. 1993).
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
    2                                        11-50514
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-50514

Citation Numbers: 498 F. App'x 744

Judges: Canby, Trott, Fletcher

Filed Date: 11/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024