United States v. Isabel Ortiz-Lopez ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-2445
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska
    Isabel Ortiz-Lopez, also known as      *
    Padrino,                               *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 30, 2001
    Filed: June 4, 2001
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Isabel Ortiz-Lopez appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1
    for the District of Nebraska after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine
    with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and
    did not contest a forfeiture count. The district court sentenced Ortiz-Lopez to seventy
    1
    The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Counsel has moved to
    withdraw under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and has filed a brief arguing
    that the district court erred in denying Ortiz-Lopez’s motion for a downward departure.
    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    During the sentencing hearing the district court explicitly recognized its authority
    to depart downward under U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.6, p.s., and 5K2.0, p.s., the Guidelines
    specified in Ortiz-Lopez’s motion; however, based on the undisputed information
    contained in the presentence report, the court refused to depart. Thus, the matter is
    unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Orozco-Rodriguez, 
    220 F.3d 940
    , 942
    (8th Cir. 2000).
    We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant
    counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-2445

Judges: McMillian, Bowman, Arnold

Filed Date: 6/4/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024