United States v. Lopez

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Lopez

526 F.3d 1128, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10693, 2008 WL 2096841

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2008

Docket07-2283

StatusPublished

This text of 526 F.3d 1128 (United States v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 526 F.3d 1128, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10693, 2008 WL 2096841 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Hector Lopez (Lopez) pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. Before sentencing, Lopez and the government negotiated an agreement resulting in a stipulation signed by both parties. Lopez signed a stipulation stating, “defendant agrees that a sentence within the guidelines range of 360 months to life is reasonable and agrees not to seek a sentence outside of this guideline range.” *1129 This stipulation was the product of negotiations between Lopez and the government in which “Lopez agrees to withdraw his objections to the final presentence investigation report, with the exception of paragraph 40, which states that the defendant used or attempted to use a person less than 18 years of age in his offense. The government agrees not to pursue this two-level adjustment to the defendant’s guideline range.” Lopez also agreed “to withdraw any motion for variance or departure.” The district court 1 sentenced Lopez to 600 months imprisonment. On appeal, Lopez contends the 600-month sentence was unreasonable when measured against the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

“[A] defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.” United States v. Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir.2006). Lopez signed a stipulation stating, “a sentence within the guidelines range of 360 months to life is reasonable.” This stipulation was the product of counseled negotiations between Lopez and the government. Lopez explicitly and voluntarily exposed himself to a sentence in the range of 360 months to life and acknowledged any sentence in this range was reasonable. This stipulation was supported by consideration, given the government’s agreement not to pursue the two-level adjustment for using a person under eighteen years of age. See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.2007) (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract principles.” (citation omitted)). Lopez does not raise any legal or equitable challenges to his negotiated stipulation. Consequently, Lopez may not now contest his 600-month sentence on appeal, a sentence falling within the agreed sentencing range. For the reasons stated, and finding no manifest injustice, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Hector Lopez (Lopez) pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. Before sentencing, Lopez and the government negotiated an agreement resulting in a stipulation signed by both parties. Lopez signed a stipulation stating, “defendant agrees that a sentence within the guidelines range of 360 months to life is reasonable and agrees not to seek a sentence outside of this guideline range.” *1129 This stipulation was the product of negotiations between Lopez and the government in which “Lopez agrees to withdraw his objections to the final presentence investigation report, with the exception of paragraph 40, which states that the defendant used or attempted to use a person less than 18 years of age in his offense. The government agrees not to pursue this two-level adjustment to the defendant’s guideline range.” Lopez also agreed “to withdraw any motion for variance or departure.” The district court 1 sentenced Lopez to 600 months imprisonment. On appeal, Lopez contends the 600-month sentence was unreasonable when measured against the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

“[A] defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.” United States v. Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir.2006). Lopez signed a stipulation stating, “a sentence within the guidelines range of 360 months to life is reasonable.” This stipulation was the product of counseled negotiations between Lopez and the government. Lopez explicitly and voluntarily exposed himself to a sentence in the range of 360 months to life and acknowledged any sentence in this range was reasonable. This stipulation was supported by consideration, given the government’s agreement not to pursue the two-level adjustment for using a person under eighteen years of age. See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.2007) (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract principles.” (citation omitted)). Lopez does not raise any legal or equitable challenges to his negotiated stipulation. Consequently, Lopez may not now contest his 600-month sentence on appeal, a sentence falling within the agreed sentencing range. For the reasons stated, and finding no manifest injustice, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 F.3d 1128, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10693, 2008 WL 2096841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lopez-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack