
    UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose ORTIZ-GONZALES, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
    
    Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
    U.S. Attorney, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William R. Burgener, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Ortiz-Gonzales appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence imposed for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation and fraud and misuse of entry documents, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Ortiz-Gonzales has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record, stating there are no grounds for relief. Ortiz-Gonzales has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We affirm the conviction. We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See United States v. Moreno-Hemandez, 419 F.3d 906, 916 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that a limited remand is warranted in all pending direct appeals involving unpreserved United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), errors, whether constitutional or nonconstitutional).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal is denied.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the sentence is REMANDED. 
      
       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.
     