United States of America v. Jose Luis Rubio-Rodriguez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JOSE LUIS RUBIO-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10529
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00262-JCM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Rubio-Rodriguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
135-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rubio-Rodriguez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are
FILED
OCT 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10529 2
no grounds for relief, along 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).
We remand to the district court to correct what may be a clerical error in the
judgment. The judgment may be amended to reflect that defendant was convicted
of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of “21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846.”
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --