Case ID: f-appx_177/html/0508-01.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, Appellee, v. Hugo SEGURA-GOMEZ, Appellant.
    No. 05-1354.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2006.
    Decided April 19, 2006.
    Joe W. Stecher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
    Glenn Alan Shapiro, Gallup & Schaefer, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.
    Hugo Segura-Gomez, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
    Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Hugo Segura-Gomez appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court imposed after Segura-Gomez pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge. On appeal, counsel has moved 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).

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the imposition of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, Gomez’s argument fails. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (sole authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir.1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate defendant’s constitutional rights).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and grant counsel leave to withdraw. 
      
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.