United States v. Roberto Gomez, No. 21-1968 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's issue - whether he should have been allowed to plead guilty to a different crime - falls squarely within the appeal waiver in his guilty plea, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1968 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Roberto Lopez Gomez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central1 ____________ Submitted: November 3, 2021 Filed: November 18, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Roberto Lopez Gomez pleaded guilty to attempted enticement of a minor. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. his conviction, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of counsel. An Anders brief questions whether Gomez should have been allowed to plead guilty to a different crime. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that this issue falls squarely within the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). And to the extent the brief suggests that plea counsel did a poor job of representing Gomez during plea negotiations, a claim of this type is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings.” United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
