-
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 02-1197 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska Onorio Noriega-Sanchez, also * known as Victor Noriega, also * [UNPUBLISHED] know as Martin Rocha, also known * as Jose Lamberto Noriega-Leon, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: December 6, 2002 Filed: December 23, 2002 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Onorio Noriega-Sanchez appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the District of Nebraska after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. The district court sentenced Noriega-Sanchez to 120 months imprisonment, the statutory minimum, and 5 years supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738(1967), raising for reversal that Noriega- Sanchez’s sentence is too severe. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. Initially, we note that Noriega-Sanchez stipulated to a drug quantity that triggered the imposition of the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Nguyen,
46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). In any event, Noriega-Sanchez’s severity argument fails, because mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Johnson,
988 F.2d 859(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Having found no nonfrivolous issues following our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We further deny Noriega-Sanchez’s motion for appointment of new counsel. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Document Info
Docket Number: 02-1197
Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 397
Judges: McMillian, Bowman, Murphy
Filed Date: 12/23/2002
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024