United States v. Vibanco-Sanchez , 2 F. App'x 668 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1002
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Benjamin Vibanco-Sanchez,                *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 21, 2001
    Filed: February 28, 2001
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Benjamin Vibanco-Sanchez pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge, in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1) and 846, and to criminal forfeiture. The district
    court1 sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On
    appeal, Vibanco-Sanchez’s counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising only the issue whether the district court erred in granting
    1
    The HONORABLE JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, United States District Judge for
    the District of Nebraska.
    Vibanco-Sanchez a 2-level rather than 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
    Vibanco-Sanchez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
    Vibanco-Sanchez stipulated at sentencing to a total offense level of 34, see
    United States v. Nguyen, 
    46 F.3d 781
    , 783 (8th Cir. 1995); and in any event, the
    district court did not clearly err in denying the additional 1-level reduction, see United
    States v. Holt, 
    149 F.3d 760
    , 762 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review), despite the
    government’s plea-agreement stipulation indicating that Vibanco-Sanchez had timely
    notified authorities of his intent to plead guilty, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(b), 6B1.4(d),
    p.s.; United States v. Nunley, 
    873 F.2d 182
    , 187 (8th Cir. 1989) (plea-agreement
    stipulation that defendant timely accepted responsibility does not bind sentencing
    court).
    Having found no non-frivolous issues upon our review of the record, see Penson
    v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we now affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1002

Citation Numbers: 2 F. App'x 668

Judges: Loken, Fagg, Arnold

Filed Date: 2/28/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024