Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03850/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Federico Valdivia-Perez
Appellant

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

___________

No. 03-3850

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa

Federico Valdivia-Perez, also known as *

Freddie, also known as Marcos, * [Unpublished]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 28, 2004

Filed: November 17, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federico Valdivia-Perez (Perez) appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1

 for the Northern District of Iowa after he pleaded guilty to conspiring

to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine and an

unspecified amount of a substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Perez to the

mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised

Appellate Case: 03-3850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834936 
-2-

release, based on his prior drug conviction. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that (1) the district

court erred in not allowing Perez to withdraw his guilty plea when he learned that the

government had decided not to file a downward departure motion for substantial

assistance, and that (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to protect Perez during

cooperation sessions. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Perez’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as there was no evidence the government

withheld the downward departure motion for an unconstitutional reason, and Perez

was informed both in the plea agreement and at the plea hearing that he might not

receive a substantial assistance departure. See United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628,

629 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 618-19

(8th Cir. 1994) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying plea withdrawal

motion premised on government’s refusal to move for substantial assistance

downward departure where government did not breach plea agreement or

unconstitutionally withhold motion). We also find that Perez’s ineffective assistance

claim should be deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, where a full record can be

developed regarding counsel’s performance. See United States v. Christians, 200

F.3d 1124, 1126 (8th Cir. 1999).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2004 Entry ID: 1834936