United States v. Jesus Valenzuela

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jesus Valenzuela

669 F. App'x 824

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2016

Docket16-1703

StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 824 (United States v. Jesus Valenzuela) 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. Jesus Valenzuela, 669 F. App'x 824 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Valenzuela directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the application of a Guidelines enhancement for possessing firearms. Valenzuela has filed a pro se *825 brief, challenging the same enhancement and the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes, and arguing that the district court should have sua sponte held a suppression hearing and suppressed evidence.

We conclude that the application of the firearm enhancement was not plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error); see also United States v. Garcia 772 F.3d 1124, 1125 (8th Cir. 2014) (for firearm enhancement, government need only prove temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and drug-trafficking activity; such nexus exists when weapon was found in same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were located). We also conclude that Valenzuela’s challenge to the drug quantity used at sentencing is contradicted by his own testimony at the change-of-plea hearing. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations' during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). We farther conclude that Valenzuela’s suppression arguments assert non-jurisdictional defects or errors that were waived by his valid guilty plea. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

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.

Jesus Valenzuela directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the application of a Guidelines enhancement for possessing firearms. Valenzuela has filed a pro se *825 brief, challenging the same enhancement and the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes, and arguing that the district court should have sua sponte held a suppression hearing and suppressed evidence.

We conclude that the application of the firearm enhancement was not plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error); see also United States v. Garcia 772 F.3d 1124, 1125 (8th Cir. 2014) (for firearm enhancement, government need only prove temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and drug-trafficking activity; such nexus exists when weapon was found in same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were located). We also conclude that Valenzuela’s challenge to the drug quantity used at sentencing is contradicted by his own testimony at the change-of-plea hearing. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations' during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). We farther conclude that Valenzuela’s suppression arguments assert non-jurisdictional defects or errors that were waived by his valid guilty plea. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jesus-valenzuela-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack