United States v. Guillermo Franco-Martinez, Also Known as Jorge Ramirez, United States of America v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, Also Known as Raul

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Guillermo Franco-Martinez, Also Known as Jorge Ramirez, United States of America v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, Also Known as Raul

271 F.3d 764, 2001 WL 1444663

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 2001

Docket01-1396NE, 01-1397NE

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 F.3d 764 (United States v. Guillermo Franco-Martinez, Also Known as Jorge Ramirez, United States of America v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, Also Known as Raul) 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. Guillermo Franco-Martinez, Also Known as Jorge Ramirez, United States of America v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, Also Known as Raul, 271 F.3d 764, 2001 WL 1444663 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Two related appeals are before us. Guillermo Franco-Martinez pleaded guilty, under a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to seven years and three months (87 months) in prison. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, a co-defendant, was also convicted on a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to five years and ten months (70 months) in prison. Both defendants appeal, raising separate questions.

Under Mr. Franeo-Martinez’s plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend that he “be held responsible for at least 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.” The District Court¹ refused to accept this agreement and held an evidentiary hearing with respect to the appropriate weight to be charged against the defendant. After this hearing, the Court found that the defendant was responsible for a larger quantity. United States v. Cirrillo-Davilla, 124 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Neb.2001). We affirm. Under our cases, the Court was not bound by the stipulation, which, in any event, was phrased as a recommendation only. See United States v. Randolph, 101 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.1996). The Court explained why it made a finding different from that requested by the parties, and it also gave the defendant a chance to renounce the agreement and go to trial. The Court could have accepted the agreement, but the law did not require that it do so. We see no error.

In the companion appeal, Mr. Cirrillo-Davilla argues that the Court erred in denying him a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In making this decision, the District Court made no clearly erroneous findings of fact, nor did it commit any error of law. The District Court’s opinion explains its findings in detail. We believe no more extended discussion is necessary.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Two related appeals are before us. Guillermo Franco-Martinez pleaded guilty, under a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to seven years and three months (87 months) in prison. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, a co-defendant, was also convicted on a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to five years and ten months (70 months) in prison. Both defendants appeal, raising separate questions.

Under Mr. Franeo-Martinez’s plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend that he “be held responsible for at least 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.” The District Court¹ refused to accept this agreement and held an evidentiary hearing with respect to the appropriate weight to be charged against the defendant. After this hearing, the Court found that the defendant was responsible for a larger quantity. United States v. Cirrillo-Davilla, 124 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Neb.2001). We affirm. Under our cases, the Court was not bound by the stipulation, which, in any event, was phrased as a recommendation only. See United States v. Randolph, 101 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.1996). The Court explained why it made a finding different from that requested by the parties, and it also gave the defendant a chance to renounce the agreement and go to trial. The Court could have accepted the agreement, but the law did not require that it do so. We see no error.

In the companion appeal, Mr. Cirrillo-Davilla argues that the Court erred in denying him a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In making this decision, the District Court made no clearly erroneous findings of fact, nor did it commit any error of law. The District Court’s opinion explains its findings in detail. We believe no more extended discussion is necessary.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 F.3d 764, 2001 WL 1444663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guillermo-franco-martinez-also-known-as-jorge-ramirez-ca8-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack