United States of America v. Eliseo Gomez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELISEO GOMEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10331
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00268-FCD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Eliseo Gomez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 188-month
sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
FILED
NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10331 2
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gomez’s counsel has filed
a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Gomez contends that the district court
erroneously assessed two criminal history points based on a prior felony
conviction.
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. We
dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d
1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --