Case ID: f-appx_558/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro GASCA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10078.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
    Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Anne M. Voigts, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Galia A. Phillips, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Genaro Gasea, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Genaro Gasea appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for two counts of use of a communications facility to facilitate a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gasca’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Gasea has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief.

The government urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Gasea filed a pro se notice of appeal over seven months after the district court entered judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir.2007) (when the government objects to the untimely filing of a notice of appeal, dismissal is mandatory).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . In light of this determination, we need not and do not address the appeal waiver issue.