From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Garcia-Gomez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2008
298 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-10550.

Submitted October 28, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 4, 2008.

Angela W. Woolridge, Esq., USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Law Office of Enrique R. Gonzales, Rio Rico, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-07-01103-JMR.

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Oscar Garcia-Gomez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal 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), GarciaGomez'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 an opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Garcia-Gomez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 4, 2008
298 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Garcia-Gomez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar GARCIA-GOMEZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 4, 2008

Citations

298 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2008)