Filed: Feb. 16, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2251 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Elias Zamarripa, * also known as Homeboy, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: February 7, 2006 Filed: February 16, 2006 _ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Elias Zamarripa pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or m
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2251 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Elias Zamarripa, * also known as Homeboy, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: February 7, 2006 Filed: February 16, 2006 _ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Elias Zamarripa pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or mo..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-2251
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Nebraska.
Elias Zamarripa, *
also known as Homeboy, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: February 7, 2006
Filed: February 16, 2006
___________
Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Elias Zamarripa pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 188 months in prison and 5
years of supervised release. On appeal, Zamarripa’s counsel has moved to withdraw
and filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
1
The Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488
U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-