Filed: Jul. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-3193WM _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * On Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Ulises G. Pomel, also known as Ulises * [Not To Be Published] Pomiel-Garcia, also known as Ulises G. * Pomiel-Garcia, * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: June 27, 2001 Filed: July 13, 2001 _ Before HANSEN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ulises G. Pomel pleaded guilty to
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-3193WM _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * On Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Ulises G. Pomel, also known as Ulises * [Not To Be Published] Pomiel-Garcia, also known as Ulises G. * Pomiel-Garcia, * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: June 27, 2001 Filed: July 13, 2001 _ Before HANSEN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ulises G. Pomel pleaded guilty to ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 00-3193WM
_____________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * On Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Western District of Missouri.
*
Ulises G. Pomel, also known as Ulises * [Not To Be Published]
Pomiel-Garcia, also known as Ulises G. *
Pomiel-Garcia, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: June 27, 2001
Filed: July 13, 2001
___________
Before HANSEN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Ulises G. Pomel pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii), and possessing a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing
the District Court1 granted the government’s motion for a substantial-assistance
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
departure, departing downward from Pomel’s Guidelines imprisonment range by
approximately five years, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of sixteen years and
eight months (200 months) imprisonment and five years supervised release on the drug
charge and ten years (120 months) imprisonment and three years supervised release on
the firearm charge. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging only the extent of
the Court’s departure. Although we granted Pomel permission to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he has not done so.
The extent of the District Court’s departure is unreviewable. See United States
v. Dutcher,
8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993). Additionally, we have reviewed the record
pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous
issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-