United States of America v. Rafael Muro-Bonilla

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RAFAEL MURO-BONILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50071
D.C. No. 5:08-cr-00198-SGL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Muro-Bonilla appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rocha-Lopez’s
FILED
JUN 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50071 2
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 with 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.
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 § 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)).
Upon remand, the district court judge should strike condition 4 of the terms
of supervised release from the judgment because he did not announce it during the
oral pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040,
1042 (9th Cir. 2006).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED; and the case is REMANDED with instructions to
correct the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --