United States v. Gomez-Medina, Cesar , 201 F. App'x 365 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted October 11, 2006
    Decided October 11, 2006
    Before
    Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
    Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    No. 06-1714
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                      Court for the Eastern District of
    Wisconsin
    v.
    No. 05-CR-244
    CESAR GOMEZ-MEDINA,
    Defendant-Appellant.                     Rudolph T. Randa,
    Chief Judge.
    ORDER
    Cesar Gomez-Medina, a Mexican citizen, was removed from the United
    States in 2002 after an Illinois court sentenced him to probation on his convictions
    for the manufacture or delivery of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance.
    After he was found in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 2005, he pleaded guilty to being in
    the United States without permission after removal. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a). The
    district court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 27 to 33 months’
    imprisonment and sentenced Gomez-Medina to 30 months’ imprisonment and three
    years’ supervised release. Gomez-Medina appeals, but his appointed counsel moves
    to withdraw under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), because she cannot
    discern any nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. We invited Gomez-Medina to respond
    No. 06-1714                                                                      Page 2
    to counsel’s motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), but he did not. Thus, our review is limited to
    the points discussed in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v.
    Schuh, 
    289 F.3d 968
    , 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).
    Counsel is able to discern only one potential issue: whether Gomez-Medina
    might argue that his prison sentence is unreasonable because the district court did
    not impose a below-range sentence to account for the lack of a “fast-track” program
    in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We have held, however,
    that the absence of a fast-track program in the sentencing district is not an
    acceptable reason for imposing a sentence below the guidelines range. United
    States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 
    453 F.3d 458
    , 462 (7th Cir. 2006). See United States
    v. Martinez-Martinez, 442 FD.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Galicia-
    Cardenas, 
    443 F.3d 553
    , 555 (7th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Thus, we agree with
    counsel that the potential argument would be frivolous.
    Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is
    DISMISSED.