United States v. Gaspar-Hernandez

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Gaspar-Hernandez

149 F. App'x 556

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 30, 2005

Docket04-4039

StatusUnpublished

This text of 149 F. App'x 556 (United States v. Gaspar-Hernandez) 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. Gaspar-Hernandez, 149 F. App'x 556 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gaspar-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the court sentenced Hernandez to 121 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. Hernandez’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by not granting safety-valve relief and sentencing Hernandez to the low end of the resulting Guidelines range of 108-135 months’ imprisonment.

Hernandez, however, cannot challenge the sentence to which he stipulated in his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement because he voluntarily exposed himself to a specific punishment. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995) (stating “defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal”) (citations omitted).

Further, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 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.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gaspar-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the court sentenced Hernandez to 121 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. Hernandez’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by not granting safety-valve relief and sentencing Hernandez to the low end of the resulting Guidelines range of 108-135 months’ imprisonment.

Hernandez, however, cannot challenge the sentence to which he stipulated in his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement because he voluntarily exposed himself to a specific punishment. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995) (stating “defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal”) (citations omitted).

Further, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 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.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 F. App'x 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gaspar-hernandez-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack