United States v. Earl Aniceto Ochoa , 387 F. App'x 646 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-3732
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * District of Minnesota.
    *
    Earl Aniceto Ochoa,                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 23, 2010
    Filed: August 2, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct criminal appeal, Earl Ochoa challenges the statutory mandatory
    minimum sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to knowingly
    and intentionally conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of “actual”
    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.
    Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
    1
    The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ochoa’s sentence is unreasonable and greater than
    necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
    We conclude that the district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below
    the statutory minimum because the government had not moved for a departure based
    on substantial assistance and Ochoa was not eligible for safety-valve relief. See
    United States v. Chacon, 
    330 F.3d 1065
    , 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority to depart
    from statutory minimum is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when
    government moves for departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies
    for safety-valve relief); see also United States v. Gregg, 
    451 F.3d 930
    , 937 (8th Cir.
    2006), confirming that United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), does not relate
    to statutorily-imposed sentences.
    After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw conditioned on counsel
    informing Ochoa about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing
    a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-3732

Citation Numbers: 387 F. App'x 646

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 8/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024