United States of America v. Nicolas Rodriguez Lopez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
NICOLAS RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50110
D.C. No. 2:00-cr-01095-GAF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nicolas Rodriguez Lopez appeals from the six concurrent terms of 288
months, and concurrent term of 240 months, imposed after he was resentenced
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-50110 2
following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073,
1084-85 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez’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 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.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, but the case is REMANDED to the district
court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to delete the special
conditions of supervised release relating to financial disclosures that were not
imposed at sentencing.

-- 2 of 2 --