United States v. Jose Beltran-Medina

282 F. App'x 482
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 2008
Docket07-2868
StatusUnpublished

This text of 282 F. App'x 482 (United States v. Jose Beltran-Medina) 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. Jose Beltran-Medina, 282 F. App'x 482 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jose Beltran-Medina (Beltran) appeals the 120-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1), 846. His counsel has 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 in denying Beltran safety-valve relief.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying safety-valve relief. In a post-arrest, videotaped interview with authorities, Beltran disclosed only the most basic facts of his offense and was less than forthcoming as to information he reasonably could have been expected to know. See United States v. Guerra-Cabrera, 477 F.3d 1021, 1025 (8th Cir.2007) (defendant must do more than disclose basic facts of crime, and district court may hold defendant responsible for disclosing identities and participation of other individuals in offense if defendant could reasonably be *483 expected to have such information); United States v. Soto, 448 F.3d 993, 995-96 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; court is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from evidence when assessing truthfulness of safety valve proffer).

After reviewing the record independently under 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 leave to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Jose Soto
448 F.3d 993 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 F. App'x 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-beltran-medina-ca8-2008.