United States v. Kheyre

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-1425
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1425 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cr-02313-RSH-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ABDIRAHMAN KHEYRE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert Steven Huie, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Abdirahman Kheyre appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions

for distribution of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(1)(B).

* 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). After appointed counsel filed a brief stating that he found no meritorious issues for

review under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we issued an order

identifying two potentially arguable issues for appeal.

The parties have now filed a joint motion to vacate and remand, which we

grant. We vacate the standard supervised release conditions included in the written

judgment and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to

orally pronounce any standard conditions it wishes to impose after giving Kheyre

an opportunity to object. See United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640, 656 (9th Cir.

2023) (en banc). We also vacate special conditions 1 and 2 and remand for the

district court to “clarify the scope of authority delegated to the probation officer” if

it elects to reimpose these conditions. See United States v. Nishida, 53 F.4th 1144,

1155 (9th Cir. 2022).

We decline to address on direct appeal Kheyre’s pro se claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on

direct appeal).

As to all other issues, including the remaining issues raised in Kheyre’s pro

se supplemental submissions, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

2 23-1425