United States of America v. Tomas Gonzalez Roldan

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sko/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOMAS GONZALEZ ROLDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-30307
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00271-EJL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Gonzalez Roldan appeals from his jury-trial conviction and
concurrent 120-month sentences for conspiracy and attempted distribution of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)(A), 846; and possession
FILED
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

sko/Research 08-30307 2
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1)(A), (b)(1)(A).
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gonzalez Roldan’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 has been filed,
however the government has filed an answering brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Roldan’s pro se
motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --