Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTI-I CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, N0. 05-10020
D.C. N0. CR-04-00800-EHC
Plaintiff - Appellee,
V.
JUDGMENT
LUIS ARMANDO HIGUERA-LLAMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District 0f Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. A I
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED the district court’s judgment. We REMAND to the district court to
correct the judgment.
Filed and entered 03/ l7/06
’“.£"i}FYY. Q`”ZiY??YéQ`~ZT"_`“—`E
.
'-,- r-
Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT Document 61 Filed O4/10/2006 Paglei/‘r
,..._m . .:$?L......-..-.....-·

» — ‘ FILED
Nor Fon PUBLICATION MAR **7 2000
cmw A. cmrsnsou cuznx
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-5- 000*** 0F APPEALS
POR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10020
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00800-EHC
v. .
MEMoRANDuM*
LUIS ARMANDO HIGUERA-LLAMAS,
Defendant — Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
submitted Match s, 2006**
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Luis Armando Higuera-Llarnas appeals from his conviction and 18-month
sentence imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
H This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT Document 61 Filed O4/10/2006 Page 2 of 3

( Pursuant to Anders v. Calybrnia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Higuera-
Llamas has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to
withdraw as counsel of record. Higuera—Llamas has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 83-84 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. We therefore GRANT counsel’s
motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district c0urt’s judgment. We REMAND to
the district court to correct the judgment to exclude reference to the 8 U.S.C.
§ l326(b)(l) sentencing enhancement, as no such enhancement was found. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. Rule 36. (“Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the
record . . . may be corrected by the court at any time.").

I we;
_ ”··~·——-———f=:f*°*€ . ..<.»t?1i;,__,,___§
Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT Document 61 Filed O4/10/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT

Document 61

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT

Document 61

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00800-JAT

Document 61

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 3 of 3