Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 426 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 10-50230
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50230.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Wendy T. Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas Graham appeals from the 100-month sentence imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Graham contends that the district court proeedurally erred by applying the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a)(3) based on previous convictions resulting from nolo contendere pleas in the California state court. California courts treat a plea of nolo contendere as the equivalent of a guilty plea conviction. See United States v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 1219, 1220 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). Because Graham was convicted of qualifying previous felonies, the district court's application of the career offender enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.