Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01314/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Ramirez-Beltran
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1314

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Mario Ramirez-Beltran, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2007

Filed: May 8, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mario Ramirez-Beltran (Beltran) appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by

the district court1

 upon his guilty plea, entered pursuant to a written plea agreement,

to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. His counsel

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

Beltran’s 120-month sentence is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (2) the

Appellate Case: 06-1314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2007 Entry ID: 3307050
-2-

district court abused its discretion in granting the government’s motion for a

continuance of the sentencing hearing. Counsel also moves to withdraw. 

We hold that Beltran waived his right to challenge the reasonableness of his

sentence on appeal because the guilty plea transcript shows that he knowingly and

voluntarily entered into his plea agreement and an appeal waiver contained therein,

because the challenge to his sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and

because enforcement of the waiver does not result in a miscarriage of justice. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (defendant can

enter into plea agreement that waives appellate rights; such waivers are enforceable

if appeal falls within scope of waiver, both waiver and plea agreement were entered

into knowingly and voluntarily, and waiver does not result in miscarriage of justice).

Liberally construing Beltran’s challenge to the sentencing-hearing continuance

as an issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver, we hold that the court did not abuse

its discretion in granting the continuance. Cf. United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070,

1071-72 (8th Cir. 2003) (district courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on

requests for continuances, which should be granted only when requesting party has

shown compelling reason; in reviewing denial of motion to continue trial,

considerations include whether counsel had sufficient time to prepare, whether

counsel was prepared, and whether denial of continuance resulted in prejudice). 

 

Finally, upon our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the district

court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2007 Entry ID: 3307050