United States v. R. Arteaga-Mendez , 131 F. App'x 502 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-2143
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Southern
v. * District of Iowa.
*
Roberto Arteaga-Mendez, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: May 9, 2005
Filed: May 16, 2005
___________
Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Arteaga-Mendez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine. In the written plea agreement, Arteaga-Mendez
stipulated that he was responsible for between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of
methamphetamine. Based on this drug quantity, the district court* sentenced Arteaga-
Mendez to 135 months in prison, fifteen months more than the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence.
*
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
Arteaga-Mendez appeals his sentence, arguing the Government failed to
establish a factual basis for his plea. Based on Arteaga-Mendez’s responses during
the plea colloquy, the written plea agreement, and the agreement’s stipulation of facts,
however, the district court could reasonably decide Arteaga-Mendez likely committed
the offense. See United States v. Gamble, 327 F.3d 662, 664 (8th Cir. 2003).
Although he made no objection in the district court, Arteaga-Mendez also challenges
the district court’s finding of drug quantity. The district court did not commit plain
error because its drug quantity finding is based on Arteaga-Mendez’s drug quantity
stipulation and the unchallenged drug quantity calculation contained in the PSR. See
United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993). We note Arteaga-Mendez
does not raise any argument under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
We thus affirm Arteaga-Mendez’s sentence.
______________________________
-2-