USA V. CARLOS GOMEZ-ROBLES, No. 18-10477 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 18-10477 18-10478 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:17-cr-00730-CKJ-JR-1 4:15-cr-01146-CKJ-JR-1 v. CARLOS GOMEZ-ROBLES, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Carlos Gomez-Robles appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and partially consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gomez-Robles’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Gomez-Robles the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Gomez-Robles waived his right to appeal his conviction, the revocation of supervised release, and his sentences. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss these appeals. See id. at 988. Appellee’s motion for leave to file its late letter is GRANTED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 18-10477 & 18-10478

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.