The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-10345•United States of America v. Manuel Cruz-Ochoa
09-10345Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 3, 2011
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL CRUZ-OCHOA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10345
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00190-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Cruz-Ochoa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month
sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Cruz-Ochoa’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along
FILED
OCT 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-10345 2
with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant
with 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We
dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d
1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
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). See United States v.
Herrera-Blanco , 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding the sua sponte to
delete the reference to section 1326(b)).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.