United States of America v. Daniel Lomeli Barreda, a.k.a. Daniel Barred Lomeli

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DANIEL LOMELI BARREDA, a.k.a.
Daniel Barred Lomeli,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50093
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01027-CAS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Lomeli Barreda 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
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50093 2
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Barreda’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 Barreda the opportunity to file a
pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has
been filed.
Barreda waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with the
exception of an appeal based on the court’s calculation of his criminal history
category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the criminal
history category calculated by the court. We therefore affirm as to that issue. We
dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
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 to § 1326(b)).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED to correct the
judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --