United States v. Paul Lopez-Aguilar

159 F. App'x 745
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 28, 2005
Docket05-1627
StatusUnpublished

This text of 159 F. App'x 745 (United States v. Paul Lopez-Aguilar) 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. Paul Lopez-Aguilar, 159 F. App'x 745 (8th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

*746 PER CURIAM.

After Paul Lopez-Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possessing a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, see 21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the district court 1 sentenced him to 228 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Lopez-Aguilar did not appeal. The government later filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Lopez-Aguilar’s sentence based on his substantial assistance, and the district court reduced his sentence from 228 months to 135 months imprisonment. Lopez-Aguilar appeals, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing an even lower sentence. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to depart further is unreviewable. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of Rule 35(b) reduction held unreviewable, because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward departure is not reviewable), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 184, — L.Ed.2d - (2005); United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not reviewable unless defendant makes substantial showing that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, 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. Ricky Coppedge
135 F.3d 598 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 F. App'x 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-paul-lopez-aguilar-ca8-2005.