
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Manuel MENDOZA-RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Jose Manuel Mendoza, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-50215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2011.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter William Baldwin, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Paul Sleisenger, Law Offices of Thomas P. Sleisenger, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jose Manuel Mendoza-Ramirez, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Manuel Mendoza-Ramirez appeals from the 57-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), Mendoza-Ramirez’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 with 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.

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to section 1326(b). 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)).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     