United States v. Marcos Romero

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2012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