United States of America v. Andres Aguirre Perez

11-50514Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 20, 2012

Full text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ANDRES AGUIRRE PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50514
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00475-R
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Andres Aguirre Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
120-month sentence for conspiracy to aid and abet the manufacture of
methamphetamine and to possess and distribute pseudoephedrine knowing or
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50514 2
having reasonable cause to believe it will be used to manufacture
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Perez’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 Perez 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. However,
we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike special
condition of supervised release number six on page two of the judgment because
the condition was included in the written judgment but not imposed orally at
sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006);
United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.