United States v. Gomez , 194 F. App'x 101 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HUGO RENE GOMEZ, a/k/a Michael Christopher
Fierro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-423)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett
Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Augustus
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hugo Rene Gomez pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to distributing five kilograms or more of cocaine (Count 1) and to
illegal reentry of an aggravated felon after removal in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000) (Count Three). On appeal,
counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but
raising the following issue: whether the district court erred by
failing to allow Gomez to withdraw his guilty plea. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion by the district court in
denying Gomez’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United
States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (stating
review standard); see United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248
(4th Cir. 1991) (articulating factors to consider when defendant
seeks to withdraw guilty plea). We have examined the entire record
in this case, including the issues raised in Gomez’s informal
brief, in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. Gomez’s
pro se motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense
is denied.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
- 2 -
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -