United States of America v. Joel Espinoza

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOEL ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50381
D.C. No.
3:16-cr-00664-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 13, 2017**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Joel Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his
120-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Espinoza’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Espinoza has filed a
pro se supplemental brief. The United States has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal.
Espinoza has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record
discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the
appeal. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).
However, the judgment does not accurately reflect the statute of conviction.
We remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect
that the conviction is for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v.
Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to
correct the judgment).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
2

-- 2 of 2 --