United States of America v. Andrew Michael Gomez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDREW MICHAEL GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30008
D.C. No. 4:20-cr-00006-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Michael Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30008
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez contends that his mandatory minimum sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary and conflicts with 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v.
Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2010) (§ 3553(a) does not authorize a
district court to impose a sentence below the mandatory statutory minimum).
Because Gomez has not shown that Wipf is “clearly irreconcilable” with
intervening higher authority, we are bound to follow it. See Miller v. Gammie, 335
F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --