Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0824-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-1703
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 24, 2016
    Filed: October 27, 2016
    Aaron L. Jennen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brice R. White, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jesus Valenzuela, Pro Se.
    Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jesus Valenzuela directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, and the district court sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the application of a Guidelines enhancement for possessing firearms. Valenzuela has filed a pro se brief, challenging the same enhancement and the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes, and arguing that the district court should have sua sponte held a suppression hearing and suppressed evidence.

We conclude that the application of the firearm enhancement was not plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error); see also United States v. Garcia 772 F.3d 1124, 1125 (8th Cir. 2014) (for firearm enhancement, government need only prove temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and drug-trafficking activity; such nexus exists when weapon was found in same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were located). We also conclude that Valenzuela’s challenge to the drug quantity used at sentencing is contradicted by his own testimony at the change-of-plea hearing. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations' during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). We farther conclude that Valenzuela’s suppression arguments assert non-jurisdictional defects or errors that were waived by his valid guilty plea. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.