Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03105/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Ortiz-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-3105/3107

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jose Ortiz-Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006

Filed: July 13, 2006

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Ortiz-Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or

more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to concurrent 168-month

and 120-month prison terms and concurrent 10-year and 8-year terms of supervised

release. The district court also revoked his supervised release for a prior federal

conviction and sentenced him to 12 months in prison, making the revocation sentence

Appellate Case: 05-3105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Entry ID: 2067233
-2-

consecutive to the sentence for the new offenses. On appeal, Ortiz-Martinez’s counsel

has filed a brief and moved to withdraw, and Ortiz-Martinez has filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

Counsel argues that a remand for resentencing is required because it is unclear

whether the district court meant to make the revocation sentence consecutive to or

concurrent with the sentence on the new charges. We conclude from the record as a

whole that the district court clearly intended the revocation sentence to be consecutive.

See United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994).

We also reject each of Ortiz-Martinez’s three pro se arguments. First, the

district court properly applied the remedial portion of United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), at sentencing. See United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1399 (2006). Second, Ortiz-Martinez was not

entitled to a preliminary hearing because he was being held on an indictment. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(a)(2); United States v. Rose, 541 F.2d 750, 753 n.2 (8th Cir.

1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 908 (1977). Third, Ortiz-Martinez cannot challenge the

validity of his guilty plea for the first time on appeal, see United States v. Murphy,

899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990), and if he wishes to raise a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel, he must do so in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, see United States

v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2006 Entry ID: 2067233