United States of America v. Juan De Dios Burgos-Munguia, a.k.a. Juan de Dios Burgos-Monguia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN DE DIOS BURGOS-MUNGUIA,
a.k.a. Juan de Dios Burgos-Monguia,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 13-10600
13-10601
D.C. Nos. 4:10-cr-00631-JGZ
4:13-cr-00167-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 9, 2014***
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Juan de Dios Burgos-Munguia appeals from
the district court judgments and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 36-
FILED
DEC 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and
his revocation of supervised release and four-month sentence imposed upon
revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Burgos-
Munguia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,
along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal with
respect to the revocation of supervised release or the conviction. We, therefore,
affirm the revocation of Burgos-Munguia’s supervised release in Appeal No. 13-
10600, and his conviction in Appeal No. 13-10601.
The district court, in a consolidated sentencing proceeding, failed to address
Burgos-Munguia personally to ask if he wanted to speak before sentencing. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii), 32.1(b)(2)(E). Because the court could have
imposed a lower sentence than the one it imposed, this omission was plain error.
See United States v. Daniels, 760 F.3d 920, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly,
we vacate and remand for resentencing in both appeals.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the
district court if counsel does not wish to represent Burgos-Munguia at his
resentencing.
13-10600 & 13-10601 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Appeal No. 13-10600: AFFIRMED in part; SENTENCE VACATED
and REMANDED.
Appeal No. 13-10601: AFFIRMED in part; SENTENCE VACATED
and REMANDED.
13-10600 & 13-10601 3

-- 3 of 3 --