United States v. Eliseo Espinoza-Rios

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Eliseo Espinoza-Rios

111 F. App'x 860

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

Docket04-2075

StatusUnpublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 860 (United States v. Eliseo Espinoza-Rios) 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. Eliseo Espinoza-Rios, 111 F. App'x 860 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Elíseo Espinoza-Rios (Rios) appeals from the final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota upon appellant’s plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 5,000 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court granted the government’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a downward departure based on substantial assistance, and sentenced Rios below the 120-month statutory minimum to 65 months imprisonment, plus 5 years supervised release. For reversal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues the district court erred in failing to grant a more substantial downward departure. Rios’s displeasure with the extent of the district court’s downward departure, however, is not reviewable. See United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993).

We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), *861 and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the request for substitute counsel.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, 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.

Elíseo Espinoza-Rios (Rios) appeals from the final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota upon appellant’s plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 5,000 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court granted the government’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a downward departure based on substantial assistance, and sentenced Rios below the 120-month statutory minimum to 65 months imprisonment, plus 5 years supervised release. For reversal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues the district court erred in failing to grant a more substantial downward departure. Rios’s displeasure with the extent of the district court’s downward departure, however, is not reviewable. See United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993).

We have also reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), *861 and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the request for substitute counsel.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eliseo-espinoza-rios-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack