United States v. Ibanez-Teyes ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-3093
    ___________
    United States of America,                  *
    *
    Appellee,                      *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                   * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Herlindo Ibanez-Teyes, Herlindo            *
    Ibanez-Tellez - true spelling of last      *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    name, also known as Carlos,                *
    *
    Appellant.                     *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 7, 2000
    Filed: March 31, 2000
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Herlindo Ibanez-Teyes pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess
    with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the
    district court1 sentenced him to ninety-seven months imprisonment and five years
    supervised release. On appeal, Ibanez-Teyes argues that the court erred by not
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    compelling the government to file a substantial-assistance downward-departure motion
    and by not allowing him to withdraw his plea.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we reject Ibanez-Teyes’s first argument
    because he failed to make a substantial threshold showing entitling him to relief. See
    United States v. Wilkerson, 
    179 F.3d 1083
    , 1086 (8th Cir. 1999) (government’s
    discretionary refusal to move for downward departure cannot be challenged unless
    defendant makes substantial threshold showing that refusal was in bad faith, irrational,
    or based on unconstitutional motive); Wade v. United States, 
    504 U.S. 181
    , 186 (1992)
    (mere showing that defendant provided substantial assistance, whether standing alone
    or coupled with generalized allegations of government’s improper motive, is
    insufficient). We do not review Ibanez-Teyes’s second argument because, although he
    initially presented his plea-withdrawal request to the district court, he withdrew it
    before the court could rule on it. See United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 733
    (1993); United States v. Tulk, 
    171 F.3d 596
    , 600 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v.
    Gutierrez, 
    130 F.3d 330
    , 332 (8th Cir. 1997).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-