MEMORANDUM

Juan Jose Negrete-Dominguez appeals from the district court judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for attempted 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), Negrete-Dominguez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Negrete-Dominguez has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief.

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 with respect to the conviction. We, therefore, affirm Negrete-Dom-inguez’s conviction.

With respect to Negrete-Dominguez’s sentence, in light of the November 2013 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, the government concedes that Negrete-Domin-guez’s sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for the district court to consider whether Negrete-Dominguez should receive a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Because it will be relevant on remand, we address Negrete-Dominguez’s argument that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). Negrete-Dominguez contends that he should not have received the enhancement for his California conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon because the conviction was obtained through a plea of nolo contendere. This contention is unavailing because a no contest plea serves as the equivalent of a guilty plea for the purposes of determining whether the crime of conviction is a crime of violence. See United States v. Guerrero-Velasquez, 434 F.3d 1193, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2006).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to renewal in the district 'court if counsel' does not wish to represent Negrete-Dominguez at his resentencing. Counsel’s request for advisement of case status is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED in part; SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED for RE-SENTENCING.

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