
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo Enrique VEGA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 2, 2012.
    Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ricardo Enrique Vega, Loretto, PA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Enrique Vega appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 240-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Vega’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. However, we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it strike the phrase “and payment” from special condition of supervised release number four on page six of the judgment because this part of the condition was included in the written judgment but not imposed at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993). We also instruct the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that Vega was found guilty, rather than that he pled guilty.

Vega’s pro se request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

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.
     