USA v. Thomas Graham, No. 10-50230 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-50230 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00490-DSF v. MEMORANDUM * THOMAS GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Thomas Graham appeals from the 100-month sentence imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 851(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Graham contends that the district court procedurally erred by applying the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)(3) based on previous convictions resulting from nolo contendere pleas in the California state court. California courts treat a plea of nolo contendere as the equivalent of a guilty plea conviction. See United States v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 1219, 1220 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Because Graham was convicted of qualifying previous felonies, the district court s application of the career offender enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED. 2 10-50230

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.