Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04040/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andres Hernandez-Carillo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4040

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Andres Hernandez-Carillo, also known *

as Jose Luis Perez-Mendez, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Alberto Reyes, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2008

 Filed: March 20, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andres Hernandez-Carillo (Hernandez-Carillo) appeals the 115-month prison

sentence the district court1

 imposed after Hernandez-Carillo pled guilty to conspiring

to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. Before sentencing Hernandez-Carillo, the district court granted the

government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for a downward departure and calculated the

Appellate Case: 06-4040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2008 Entry ID: 3414936
-2-

115-month sentence by reducing the low end of Hernandez-Carillo’s advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range by 15%. 

In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), HernandezCarillo’s counsel seeks permission to withdraw and presents arguments challenging

the reasonableness of the 115-month sentence. Upon review, we find these arguments

unpersuasive. Contrary to counsel’s first argument, we first conclude the district court

adequately considered Hernandez-Carillo’s cooperation and the risk it created to his

family. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2469 (2007) (explaining where the

district court listened to the defendant’s arguments for a downward departure and was

fully aware of the relevant circumstances, a reviewing court could infer from the

context and record the district court’s conclusion that such circumstances did not

warrant a lower sentence, even though the conclusion was not expressly stated).

Second, to the extent Hernandez-Carillo’s counsel argues the district court erred in its

criminal history computation, the argument has been waived. See United States v.

Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to review the district

court’s findings related to sentencing enhancement, drug quantity, and criminal

history, even for plain error, where defendant’s counsel withdrew objections to the

PSR at the sentencing hearing and asked for a sentence at the low end of the

Guidelines range). Third, we find the district court adequately and appropriately

considered the section 3553(a) factors, and did not overlook a relevant factor, give

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or make a clear error of

judgment in weighing appropriate factors—including Hernandez-Carillo’s criminal

past. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing

standard for reasonableness review). 

We also conclude arguments in Hernandez-Carillo’s pro se supplemental brief

are unavailing. Hernandez-Carillo’s complaints regarding his counsel should be

brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Harris,

310 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding ineffective assistance of counsel

Appellate Case: 06-4040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2008 Entry ID: 3414936
-3-

claims should generally be raised under § 2255 because normally the claims require

development of facts outside the record). To the extent Hernandez-Carillo is

challenging the knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea, that claim is not

properly before us because it was not presented to the district court. See United States

v. Mims, 440 F.2d 643, 644 (8th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (declaring defendant’s

argument that his guilty plea was involuntary was not properly before the appellate

court because defendant did not file a motion in the district court to withdraw his

guilty plea; involuntariness of a guilty plea must first be presented to the district

court).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for direct appeal. Thus, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4040 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2008 Entry ID: 3414936