United States of America v. Andrew Al Littleman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDREW AL LITTLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-10443
D.C. No. 3:19-cr-08014-SPL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Al Littleman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 57-month concurrent sentences for
sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a) and 2246(2)(C), and
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
* 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
MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-10443
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Littleman’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
Littleman the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se
supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Littleman waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
We remand, however, for the district court to conform the written judgment
to the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v.
Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). At sentencing, the district court
agreed to strike “in the company of” from special condition of supervised release
11, and it did not include that language when it orally pronounced the condition.
Accordingly, on remand, the district court is directed to strike from special
condition 11 in the written judgment the following language: “be in the company
of or.”
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --