United States v. Luis Raul Cervantes

209 F. App'x 606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 14, 2006
Docket05-3776
StatusUnpublished

This text of 209 F. App'x 606 (United States v. Luis Raul Cervantes) 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. Luis Raul Cervantes, 209 F. App'x 606 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Luis Raul Cervantes appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, counsel has 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 by denying Cervantes a mitigating-role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We find no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Cervantes failed to prove his entitlement to a reduction. See United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 837 (8th Cir.2000) (burden of proof and standard of proof). Cervantes, who was admittedly transporting drugs by car from California to Minnesota for another individual, presented little evidence concerning his role relative to those of other participants in the offense, and his status as a courier did not itself entitle him to a reduction. See United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2000) (courier role does not automatically justify mitigating-role reduction given that transportation is necessary to drug distribution; role is determined by participant’s acts in relation to relevant conduct *607 for which participant is held accountable and by measuring participants’ relative culpability).

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, 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. Gary O'Dell
204 F.3d 829 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Reynaldo F. Alverez
235 F.3d 1086 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F. App'x 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-luis-raul-cervantes-ca8-2006.