United States v. Cabrera Basurto

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Cabrera Basurto

67 F. App'x 387

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2003

Docket02-3757

StatusUnpublished

This text of 67 F. App'x 387 (United States v. Cabrera Basurto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cabrera Basurto, 67 F. App'x 387 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ramiro Cabrera Basurto pleaded guilty to distributing 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court 1 sentenced him to 46 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Basurto has not filed a supplemental brief.

Counsel argues that Basurto’s sentence was unreasonable considering his crime, and that a supervised release condition requiring Basurto to report to a probation office upon reentering the United States violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As neither of these arguments was raised below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir.2002), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 2275, 156 L.Ed.2d 133 (2003) (No. 02-9418). We reject counsel’s first argument because Basurto was sentenced within the Guidelines range corresponding to the Guidelines calculations to which he stipulated in his plea agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). Nor did the court plainly err in imposing the supervised release condition. See United States v. Calles-Abrego, 52 Fed. Appx. 320, 321 (8th Cir. Dec.12, 2002) (unpublished per curiam) (finding no plain error in imposition of same condition).

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ramiro Cabrera Basurto pleaded guilty to distributing 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court 1 sentenced him to 46 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Basurto has not filed a supplemental brief.

Counsel argues that Basurto’s sentence was unreasonable considering his crime, and that a supervised release condition requiring Basurto to report to a probation office upon reentering the United States violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As neither of these arguments was raised below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir.2002), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 2275, 156 L.Ed.2d 133 (2003) (No. 02-9418). We reject counsel’s first argument because Basurto was sentenced within the Guidelines range corresponding to the Guidelines calculations to which he stipulated in his plea agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). Nor did the court plainly err in imposing the supervised release condition. See United States v. Calles-Abrego, 52 Fed. Appx. 320, 321 (8th Cir. Dec.12, 2002) (unpublished per curiam) (finding no plain error in imposition of same condition).

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. App'x 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cabrera-basurto-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack