FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10297
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01759-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
URIEL RODOLFO TORRES-
CISNEROS, a.k.a. Uriel Torres-Cisneros,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Rodolfo Torres-Cisneros appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 738 (1967), Torres-Cisneros’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 Torres-Cisneros 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 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to
Torres-Cisneros’s conviction, and we affirm his conviction.
With respect to Torres-Cisneros’s sentence, we vacate and remand for
resentencing on an open record. Torres-Cisneros received an eight-level
sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for a prior burglary
conviction although the probation officer was unable to confirm the specific statute
under which Torres-Cisneros was convicted, and the government did not present
any judicially noticeable documents indicating the specific statute of conviction.
Under these circumstances, the district court plainly erred by imposing the
enhancement. See United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 967-68 (9th
Cir. 2003). On resentencing, if the government seeks an enhancement under
section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), it shall submit judicially noticeable documents
demonstrating the prior statute of conviction. If it does so, the district court shall
then determine whether Torres-Cisneros’s prior offense is an aggravated felony
2 14-10297
within the meaning of section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). If the government cannot provide
documentation establishing the prior statute of conviction, it may not seek an
enhancement for that conviction. See Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d at 967.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. On remand, the district court
shall appoint Torres-Cisneros new counsel.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED for
resentencing.
3 14-10297