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)
11-50343•United States of America v. Silvano Morales Flores, a.k.a. Silvano Flores Morales
11-50343Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 16, 2013
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
SILVANO MORALES FLORES, a.k.a.
Silvano Flores Morales,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50343
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00118-GW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Silvano Morales Flores appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal
alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-50343 2
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Morales Flores’s
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Morales Flores 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. However,
we remand the case to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to
delete the incorrect reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and replace it with
the proper statute of conviction, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In addition, the court should
strike the special conditions of supervised release, which are only applicable in
cases in which the court imposes a fine or restitution. See C.D. Cal. General Order
01-05.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.