United States v. Noe Lopez-Valdez ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-1399
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Noe Lopez-Valdez,                        *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 7, 2000
    Filed: April 12, 2000
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Noe Lopez-Valdez pleaded guilty to being found in the United States without the
    Attorney General’s consent, after having been convicted of a felony and deported, in
    violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b). The district court1 sentenced him to 60 months
    imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising two issues: (1) that Lopez-
    Valdez’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because during the change-of-plea
    1
    The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    hearing he expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel, and was reluctant to admit that
    he had previously been deported, one of the elements of the charged offense; and (2)
    that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by counting his 1991 Texas
    conviction for burglary of a motor vehicle and his 1992 Texas conviction for
    aggravated assault as aggravated felonies for purposes of an enhancement under U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (1998).
    We will not consider the voluntariness of Lopez-Valdez’s guilty plea because
    he did not present this issue to the district court. See United States v. Arps, 
    197 F.3d 1202
    , 1203 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We conclude Lopez-Valdez has waived any
    objection to his 60-month sentence by entering into a sentencing stipulation which
    would result in that very sentence. See United States v. Nguyen, 
    46 F.3d 781
    , 783 (8th
    Cir. 1995). We also conclude the ex post facto argument lacks merit as the district
    court sentenced Lopez-Valdez for the offense of illegal reentry, not for burglary or
    assault. See United States v. Baca-Valenzuela, 
    118 F.3d 1223
    , 1231 (8th Cir. 1997).
    In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988), we have reviewed
    the record for any nonfrivolous issues and have found none.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-