Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a defendant, who was convicted after a guilty plea for illegal re-entry following deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and sentenced to 57 months in prison. The defendant's counsel filed an Anders brief, claiming no viable grounds for relief and seeking withdrawal, which was denied following an independent review. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded the sentence due to changes in the legal landscape regarding the Sentencing Guidelines, which are now advisory rather than mandatory. The district court was instructed to reconsider the defendant's sentence in light of the advisory nature of these guidelines as established in United States v. Ameline. The outcome resulted in the affirmation of the conviction while remanding the sentence for potential adjustment. This memorandum disposition is not intended for publication and cannot be cited except under specific rules of the Ninth Circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Anders Brief and Counsel’s Motion to Withdrawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel's request to withdraw, based on the lack of grounds for relief, was denied by the court following an independent review.
Reasoning: Counsel for Ortiz-Franco, citing Anders v. California, asserts there are no grounds for relief and seeks to withdraw.
Guilty Plea Conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation under this statute was upheld.
Reasoning: Miguel Ortiz-Franco appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and a 57-month sentence.
Reconsideration of Sentence in Light of United States v. Amelinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court is instructed to reassess the sentence considering the advisory status of the Sentencing Guidelines following United States v. Ameline.
Reasoning: The district court is instructed to reconsider Ortiz-Franco’s sentence in light of United States v. Ameline.
Sentencing Guidelines Advisory Post-Bookersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines and remanded the sentence for reconsideration in light of this change.
Reasoning: It notes that the Sentencing Guidelines are now advisory, and it cannot ascertain if the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence had it known this.