22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f4,MEMORANDUM Nicolas Rodriguez Lopez appeals from the six concurrent terms of 288 months, and concurrent term of 240 months, imposed after he was resenteneed following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez’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 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. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, but the case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to delete the special conditions of supervised release relating to financial disclosures that were not imposed at sentencing. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T526,

MEMORANDUM

Nicolas Rodriguez Lopez appeals from the six concurrent terms of 288 months, and concurrent term of 240 months, imposed after he was resenteneed following a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez’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 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.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, but the case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to delete the special conditions of supervised release relating to financial disclosures that were not imposed at sentencing.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.