United States v. Banta Unguru

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 22-10088 22-10089 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:21-cr-00270-SMB-1 v. 2:20-cr-00542-SMB-1 BANTA UNGURU, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Banta Unguru appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 87-month sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, in violation of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1028A(a)(1), and 1029(a)(3), respectively. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Unguru’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Unguru has filed a pro se brief. No answering brief has been filed. Unguru waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Unguru’s pro se arguments that the government breached the plea agreement, and that his plea and appellate waiver were not knowing and voluntary, are not supported by the record. We accordingly dismiss these appeals. We remand, however, with instructions to correct the written judgments to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence by (1) imposing a 12-month term of supervised release on the aggravated identity theft count, and (2) deleting the phrase “(outpatient and/or inpatient)” from special supervised release condition 1 in both judgments. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls over inconsistent written judgment). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgments. 2 22-10088 & 22-10089