                  FOR PUBLICATION
  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
       FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   No. 07-10368
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                v.
                                          CR-05-00546-NVW
                                           District of Arizona,
JOSE ANGEL BELTRAN-MORENO, aka
El Tan Beltran,                                  Phoenix
              Defendant-Appellant.
                                       

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   No. 07-10370
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                v.                         CR-05-00546-NVW
ABRAHAM BELTRAN-MORENO, aka               District of Arizona,
                                                 Phoenix
Abram aka Abram Beltran-Moreno
aka Adrian Beltran-Figueroa,
             Defendant-Appellant.
                                               ORDER

                   Filed March 10, 2009

      Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Stephen Reinhardt and
           A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.


                          ORDER

  The opinion filed February 10, 2009 is amended as follows:

1. At Slip Op. 1589, replace “on top of any other sentence”
with <in addition to any other sentence>.

2. At Slip Op. 1589, delete the text of footnote 1 and replace
it with:

                            2983
2984          UNITED STATES v. BELTRAN-MORENO
    <We note that there appears to be an error in the for-
    mal judgments of conviction for both defendants.
    Compare Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (Sta-
    tus Conference/Change of Plea) at 35-37, United
    States v. Beltran-Moreno, No. 05-00546-NVW (D.
    Ariz. March 8, 2007) (No. 427), and Superceding
    Indictment at 3, Beltran-Moreno, No. 05-00546-
    NVW (D. Ariz. June 8, 2005) (No. 43) (showing sur-
    plusage crossed-out), with Judgment in a Criminal
    Case at 1, Beltran-Moreno, No. 05-00546-NVW (D.
    Ariz. July 7, 2007) (Nos. 392, 393) (formal judg-
    ments including surplusage). The error is of no sig-
    nificance for purposes of this appeal.>

3. At Slip Op. 1590, replace “the district judge exercised his
discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to depart downward
from the Guidelines recommendation, sentencing the defen-
dants to thirty-five years in prison instead of imprisoning
them for the rest of their lives as the Guidelines suggest, but
no longer mandate” with <the district judge exercised his dis-
cretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a sentence of
thirty-five years, which was well below the Guidelines recom-
mendation of a life sentence>.

4. At Slip Op. 1591, replace “For reasons beyond our under-
standing, the Beltrans have appealed their sentences, arguing
that instead of imposing a mandatory minimum of twenty
years, the district court should have consolidated the two
§ 924(c) sentences into a single five-year term and imposed
a fifteen-year minimum sentence for each of them.” with <For
reasons beyond our understanding, the Beltrans appealed their
sentences, and counsel argued that instead of imposing a man-
datory minimum of twenty years, the district court should
have imposed only a single five-year sentence under § 924(c)
and therefore a total mandatory minimum of fifteen years for
each of them.>.

5. At Slip Op. 1591-92, replace “In this case, the two
§ 924(c) counts are respectively predicated on possession with
               UNITED STATES v. BELTRAN-MORENO                 2985
intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a),
(b)(1)(A)(viii), and possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, id. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A)(iii).” with <In this case, the
two § 924(c) counts respectively charged the defendants with
possessing a firearm on March 12, 2005 in furtherance of
their possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and with possessing a
firearm on June 22, 2005 in furtherance of their possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, id. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A)(iii);
both firearm counts also incorporated the drug conspiracy
count to which the defendants pled guilty.>

6. At Slip Op. 1592, replace “rather, they appear simply to
be ignorant of the controlling law” with <rather, Jose’s coun-
sel at least appears simply to be ignorant of the controlling
law.>. To that amended sentence, attach the following new
footnote:

    <Jose’s attorney argues, without mentioning the con-
    trary holding in Smith, that “the statute does not . . .
    require each firearm sentence to . . . be consecutive
    to each [other] firearm sentence.” Abraham’s attor-
    ney presents a slightly different claim, albeit with the
    same result. He argues that the predicate offenses for
    Abraham’s two gun charges are not distinct because
    the factual basis adduced by the government during
    Abraham’s plea colloquy establishes his guilt with
    respect to only a single drug conspiracy count and no
    more. While not legally frivolous, this argument is
    clearly belied by the very portion of the record Abra-
    ham’s counsel quotes in his brief. Abraham’s coun-
    sel asserts that the factual basis for Abraham’s plea
    establishes that the first firearm count was predicated
    on the drug conspiracy count. The record demon-
    strates that the prosecutor established that Abra-
    ham’s second gun count was predicated on “the
    crime of possession [with intent to distribute]
    methamphetamine.” Under our circuit law as it has
2986           UNITED STATES v. BELTRAN-MORENO
    existed for over ten years, “possession with intent to
    distribute and conspiracy [to possess with intent to
    distribute] are two separate offenses for section
    924(c) purposes.” United States v. Lopez, 37 F.3d
    565, 570 (9th Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds
    516 U.S. 1022 (1995); see United States v. Andrews,
    75 F.3d 552, 557-58 (9th Cir. 1996) (reaffirming
    Lopez’s § 924(c) sentencing analysis). Accordingly,
    the conclusion that Abraham is properly subject to
    two consecutive § 924(c) sentences is inescapable.>

7. At Slip Op. 1593, replace “strong warning for the defen-
dant’s appellate counsel” with <strong warning for appellate
counsel>. In the following sentence, at Slip Op. 1594, insert
the word <here> between “have counsel” and “avoided a dis-
position”.

8. At Slip Op. 1594, insert the words <the record and>
between “research” and “the relevant case law”. In the sen-
tence after that, delete the words “one has been”.

9. At Slip Op. 1594, replace the sentence “We also remind
counsel of their ethical obligations not to present arguments
to this court that are legally frivolous.” with the following two
sentences: <We also remind counsel of their ethical obliga-
tions not to present frivolous arguments to this court. If, after
counsel have researched the governing law and advised their
clients of the lack of merit in their appeal and of the poten-
tially severe adverse consequences they face, their clients still
insist on going forward, counsel are best advised to file a brief
with this court as set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967).>.

  No subsequent Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En
Banc shall be permitted in No. 07-10368. The Petition for
Rehearing and Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc in No. 07-
10370 is due by March 26, 2009 consistent with the Clerk’s
Order filed February 25, 2009.
                             PRINTED FOR
                   ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
                BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
                          © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
