United States of America v. Alexandra Castro Macabalo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDRA CASTRO MACABALO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10479
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00003-RVM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Ramona V. Manglona, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Alexandra Castro Macabalo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for perjury, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1623(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Macabalo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,
* 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).
FILED
NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-10479
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided
Macabalo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Macabalo waived the right to appeal her conviction. Because the record
discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, we dismiss Macabalo’s
appeal as to her conviction. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88
(9th Cir. 2009).
With respect to Macabalo’s sentence, our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds
for relief, except that the written judgment, which reflects a 21-month custodial
sentence, is inconsistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of a 20-month
sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Macabalo’s sentence but remand the case with
instructions to make the judgment consistent with the oral pronouncement. See
United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (remanding for
the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the unambiguous
oral pronouncement of sentence).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to correct the
judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --