
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alberto CORTEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 21, 2013.
    Christina Marie Cabanillas, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alberto Cortez-Sanchez, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Cortez-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 24-month sentence for reentry after 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), Cortez-Sanchez’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 Cortez-Sanehez 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 as to Cortez-Sanchez’s conviction and custodial sentence. However, before Cortez-Sanchez was sentenced, the Guidelines were amended to recommend against the imposition of supervised release in cases where the defendant is likely to be deported after imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 501.1(c) & cmt. n. 5 (2011). Because the record suggests that the district court did not consider section 5Dl.l(e) when it imposed supervised release in this case, we vacate Cortez-Sanchez’s 3-year term of supervised release and remand for the district court to reconsider the imposition of supervised release in light of that section.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The government’s motion to strike a misfiled letter is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED, sentence VACATED in part, REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     