United States v. Floriberto Estrada-Bahena, Also Known as Heriberto Estrada-Bahena

201 F.3d 1070, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 981, 2000 WL 76574
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 27, 2000
Docket99-3280
StatusPublished
Cited by137 cases

This text of 201 F.3d 1070 (United States v. Floriberto Estrada-Bahena, Also Known as Heriberto Estrada-Bahena) 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. Floriberto Estrada-Bahena, Also Known as Heriberto Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 981, 2000 WL 76574 (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Floriberto Estrada-Bahena challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to being found in the United States without the Attorney General’s consent, after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although we granted Estrada-Bahena permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.

As part of his plea agreement, Estrada-Bahena waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the district court departed upward from the Guidelines range. We conclude that this waiver was knowing and voluntary because, among other things, Estrada-Bahena was assisted by counsel and an interpreter at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings; the court questioned him about the appeal waiver at the change-of-plea hearing, verifying that he understood he was waiving his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, that he had reviewed the agreement with his counsel with the assistance of an interpreter, and that he wanted the court to adopt the agreement; the court reminded him of the appeal waiver again at sentencing; and the plea agreement and the presentence report advised him of a maximum possible sentence well in excess of that which he ultimately received. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir.) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of waiver), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 363, 142 L.Ed.2d 299 (1998); United States v. Greger, 98 F.Sd 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir.1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict with negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal from sentence will be enforced; appeal waiver was valid where it was included in plea agreement, it was discussed at change-of-plea hearing, court imposed sentence without objection from defendant, and court reviewed appeal waiver at sentencing).

Accordingly, because Estrada-Bahena’s sentence was not an upward departure from the Guidelines range, we now specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing his appeal. See United States v. Williams, 160 F.3d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We also grant his counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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

Related

United States v. Eric Mack
541 F. App'x 716 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Khoi Van Ha
355 F. App'x 976 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Ken Warren
354 F. App'x 274 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Billy Scarlett
348 F. App'x 188 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Claudia Rodriguez-Rivera
334 F. App'x 41 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Troy Thompson
347 F. App'x 264 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Carolyn Green
347 F. App'x 268 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. James Richards
331 F. App'x 431 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Phillip Kelly
329 F. App'x 696 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Sammy Jefferson
329 F. App'x 56 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Thomas Jackson
328 F. App'x 348 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Juan Avalos-Lopez
327 F. App'x 681 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jose Cortez-Leon
324 F. App'x 543 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Kirk Newby
324 F. App'x 542 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. John Blue
321 F. App'x 528 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Randy Teter
317 F. App'x 585 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Pierre Starks
311 F. App'x 935 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Frank Oddo, Jr.
311 F. App'x 941 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Lynda Craig
307 F. App'x 31 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Shedrick
304 F. App'x 55 (Third Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 F.3d 1070, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 981, 2000 WL 76574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-floriberto-estrada-bahena-also-known-as-heriberto-ca8-2000.