FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50586
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00445-DSF
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARCOS GONZALEZ ROMERO, a.k.a.
Marco Romero Gonzalez, a.k.a. Guadalupe
Ramirez, a.k.a. Tortas,
Defendant - Appellant,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Gonzalez Romero appeals from the 291-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846, § 1962(d); conspiracy to
*
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).
possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine, in violation 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1); and possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gonzalez Romero’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 with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental
brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Gonzalez Romero waived his right to appeal his sentence with the exception
of conditions of certain supervised release. Our independent review of the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable
grounds for relief as to defendant’s conviction or the conditions of supervised
release, and indicates that the appeal waiver is valid. We dismiss the appeal of the
sentence in part. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2000).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.
2 10-50586