Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hugo Rene GOMEZ, a/k/a Michael Christopher Fierro, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 30, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 10, 2006.
    
      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.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed2d 493 (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 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.