USA V. ANDREW GOMEZ, No. 21-30008 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-30008 D.C. No. 4:20-cr-00006-BMM-1 v. ANDREW MICHAEL GOMEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Andrew Michael Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gomez contends that his mandatory minimum sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary and conflicts with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2010) (§ 3553(a) does not authorize a district court to impose a sentence below the mandatory statutory minimum). Because Gomez has not shown that Wipf is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority, we are bound to follow it. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 21-30008

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.