United States of America v. Jamie Richardson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMIE RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23-10007
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00044-KJM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jamie Richardson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
his guilty-plea convictions, time-served sentence, and 36-month term of supervised
release for use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking offense,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), and possession of a die and plate designed to
* 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
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-10007
render a drug into a counterfeit substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(5).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Richardson’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 Richardson the opportunity to
file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief
has been filed.
Richardson waived his right to appeal his conviction 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.
However, we remand for the district court to make Special Condition 1 in
the written judgment match the first special condition included in the presentence
report, which the court adopted “as written” during the oral pronouncement of
sentence. See United States v. Jones, 696 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2012) (where
there is a direct conflict between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence
and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls). On remand, the
district court must also correct the written judgment to reflect that the offenses of
conviction are Class D felonies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-10007
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions to correct the written
judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --