
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio SALAZAR-LUNA, a.k.a. Jose Salazar, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10626.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2014.
    Tracy A. Hino, Assistant U.S., USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Salina Kanai Althof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Salazar-Luna appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Salazar-Luna’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Salazar-Luna 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete from judgment reference to section 1326(b)).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     