United States v. Sergio Martinez-Soto

177 F. App'x 510
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 2006
Docket05-1704
StatusUnpublished

This text of 177 F. App'x 510 (United States v. Sergio Martinez-Soto) 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. Sergio Martinez-Soto, 177 F. App'x 510 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Martinez-Soto pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846; possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and a criminal forfeiture count. The district court * imposed consecutive prison terms of 120 months on the drug-conspiracy charge and 60 months on the gun charge, two concurrent terms of 5 years of supervised release, and a forfeiture of $14,100. On appeal, Martinez-Soto’s 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).

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences, the argument fails. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir.1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate defendant’s constitutional rights). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), for any non-frivolous issues, we find none. Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

*

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. Jose A. Chacon
330 F.3d 1065 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sergio-martinez-soto-ca8-2006.