
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo QUEZADA-MONTERO, a.k.a. Hugo Ramirez, a.k.a. Louis Panuco, a.k.a. Quatemo Mercado, a.k.a. Javier Lopez, a.k.a. Pedro Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50158.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gene Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vo-robyov, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Hugo Quezada-Montero, pro se.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Quezada-Montero appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, 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), Quezada-Montero’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 the appellant 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, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the district court’s judgment is 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 that it delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

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