United States v. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales

588 F. App'x 519

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 8, 2015

Docket14-2485

StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 519 (United States v. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales) 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. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales, 588 F. App'x 519 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jacinto Frias-Gonzales directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court 1 sentenced him to a prison term within his calculated Guidelines range. Defense counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief *520 under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Frias-Gonzales’s sentence. Frias-Gon-zales has filed a pro se supplemental brief, also challenging his sentence and additionally challenging the validity of his guilty plea. Moreover, he has moved for appointment of a new attorney.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Frias-Gonzales, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences), and that Frias-Gonzales’s additional pro se arguments are unavailing, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir.2007) (valid guilty plea is admission of guilt that waives all non-jurisdietional defects and defenses); United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir.2006) (pro se claim that guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent was not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant did not attempt to withdraw guilty plea in district court). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Frias-Gonzales about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. We also deny Frias-Gonzales’s motion for appointment of a new attorney.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jacinto Frias-Gonzales directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court 1 sentenced him to a prison term within his calculated Guidelines range. Defense counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief *520 under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Frias-Gonzales’s sentence. Frias-Gon-zales has filed a pro se supplemental brief, also challenging his sentence and additionally challenging the validity of his guilty plea. Moreover, he has moved for appointment of a new attorney.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Frias-Gonzales, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences), and that Frias-Gonzales’s additional pro se arguments are unavailing, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir.2007) (valid guilty plea is admission of guilt that waives all non-jurisdietional defects and defenses); United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir.2006) (pro se claim that guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent was not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant did not attempt to withdraw guilty plea in district court). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Frias-Gonzales about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. We also deny Frias-Gonzales’s motion for appointment of a new attorney.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 F. App'x 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jacinto-frias-gonzales-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack