976 F.2d 738: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Frank Edward Gegax, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 976 F.2d 738
Submitted Sept. 15, 1992.*Decided Sept. 17, 1992
Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Frank Edward Gegax appeals his sentence of 144 months under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"), following a guilty plea, for conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute marijuana plants and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gegax's counsel filed a brief which identified two possible issues for review: (1) whether the fine provisions of the Guidelines are contrary to statutory authority and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a fine on the defendant because his prison earnings will be needed by his family. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1
The government contends that Gegax waived his right to appeal his sentence pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.2 We agree. Because the district court imposed a 144-month term of imprisonment, consistent with the plea agreement, and there is no claim that the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, Gegax waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1488 (1992). Moreover, Gegax did not contest the fine below. See United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463, 1468 (9th Cir.1991) (generally this court declines to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal). Therefore, we do not reach the merit's of Gegax's claim and relieve counsel.3