Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02291/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Cortez-Gomez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel States C.ourt of Api)t;als Tent.'1 Circuit 

OCT O 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MANUEL CORTEZ-GOMEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2291 

(D. C. No. CR-90-301-HB) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Cortez-Gomez entered guilty pleas to possession of less 

than fifty kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute and to 

aiding and abetting, and was sentenced to twenty-four months 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2291 Document: 010110090764 Date Filed: 10/07/1991 Page: 1 
imprisonment. Mr. Cortez-Gomez appeals his sentence. 

Following Mr. Cortez-Gomez's guilty pleas, a presentence 

report was prepared and filed. This report calculated a 

sentencing guideline range of twenty-four to thirty months based 

upon an adjusted offense level of 16 and a criminal history 

category of II. 1 At sentencing defense counsel requested a 

sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. The sentencing 

court complied with this request, sentencing Mr. Cortez-Gomez to 

the minimum possible of twenty-four months. 

Counsel for Mr. Cortez-Gomez commendably and properly filed a 

brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and noted his inability to discover error by the 

sentencing court. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and note there were no 

disputed facts contained in the presentence report. We can 

discern no error in the sentencing calculations prejudicial to Mr. 

Cortez-Gomez. 

In United States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1482 (10th Cir. 

1 The presentence report states "[t]he total of the criminal 

history points is four. According to the sentencing table, 

Chapter 5, Part A, four points establishes a criminal history 

category of II." We note, however, that four ponts establishes a 

criminal history level of III. The correct sentencing guideline 

range is twenty-seven to thirty months. Mr. Cortez-Gomez received 

the benefit of this miscalculation. Because the government did 

not appeal this issue, we refuse to consider this sentencing 

error. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2291 Document: 010110090764 Date Filed: 10/07/1991 Page: 2 
1990), we held we have no jurisdiction to review a sentence 

imposed within the appropriate guideline range. As no error has 

been asserted by t he Government, as we discern no error concerning 

clearly erroneous factual findings, improper calculation or 

application of the sentencing guidelines prejudicial to Mr. 

Cortez-Gomez, and as the sentence lies within the proper 

parameters of the statutes and guidelines, we lack jurisdiction to 

review the sentence imposed. 

This appeal is therefore dismissed . . The mandate shi:ill issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2291 Document: 010110090764 Date Filed: 10/07/1991 Page: 3