Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01807/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01807-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Lopez-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1807

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Rafael Lopez-Ramirez, also known as *

David Gallegos, also known as Rapha, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 12, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Lopez-Ramirez (Ramirez) pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, and a

methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),

(b)(1)(C), and 846. At sentencing, the parties agreed that Ramirez’s advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range, based on a total offense level of 27 and a Category

I criminal history and after safety-valve relief, was 70-87 months. Ramirez’s counsel

indicated that Ramirez was not seeking a variance from that range and asked for a 70-

Appellate Case: 05-1807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2006 Entry ID: 2031712
1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

month sentence. The district court1

 sentenced Ramirez to 70 months' imprisonment

and 5 years' supervised release. On appeal, different counsel for Ramirez has moved

to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that the district court plainly erred in failing to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors before imposing sentence.

We conclude that, because Ramirez agreed to the underlying Guidelines

calculations and specifically requested the 70-month prison term, he may not

challenge his sentence on appeal. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific

sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”); see also United States v.

Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050, 1056 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant’s stipulation to total

offense level and to specific Guidelines range and his counsel’s request for sentence

within stipulated-to range “may be interpreted as an acknowledgment that any

sentence within the range would have been reasonable”).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2006 Entry ID: 2031712