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)
10-50124•United States of America v. Mauricio Almendarez-Amaya, a.k.a. Mauricio Armendarez
10-50124Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 29, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MAURICIO ALMENDAREZ-AMAYA,
a.k.a. Mauricio Armendarez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50124
D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00333-DOC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Almendarez-Amaya appeals from his bench-trial conviction and
84-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California,
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-50124 2
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Almendarez-Amaya’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 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.
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 incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). See
United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding
sua sponte to delete the reference § 1326(b)).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.