Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02425/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02425-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elpidio Beltran-Avelos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2425

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Elpidio Beltran-Avelos, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2007

Filed: November 2, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elpidio Beltran-Avelos (Beltran-Avelos) appeals the concurrent 240-month

prison sentences imposed upon him by the district court1

 after he pled guilty to (1)

conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; (2) possessing with intent

to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and (3) re-entering the United States without

consent after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Beltran-Avelos’s counsel

Appellate Case: 06-2425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368684
-2-

has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable. Beltran-Avelos filed a supplemental

brief claiming (1) his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his co-conspirators

were not named in the indictment; (2) his plea was not knowing and voluntary because

of deficiencies in his counsel’s performance; (3) he did not know the drug-quantity

calculation could be based in part on statements by his co-conspirator; and (4) 21

U.S.C. § 851 is unconstitutional because the indictment must allege the elements of

a prior conviction used to enhance a defendant’s sentence.

We conclude Beltran-Avelos’s concurrent sentences are not unreasonable

because the combined Guidelines range for the three counts was elevated to 240

months imprisonment based on the statutory minimum penalty for the conspiracy

count. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting an

argument the district court had discretion to determine whether the ultimate sentence

is reasonable and to impose a non-Guidelines sentence when a portion of sentence is

the result of mandatory minimum sentence; “Booker does not relate to statutorilyimposed sentences”); see also United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.

2003) (concluding the only authority for the district court to depart from a statutory

minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when

the government makes a motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for

safety-valve relief). 

We further conclude Beltran-Avelos’s supplemental-brief arguments are

unavailing. First, Beltran-Avelos cannot challenge the knowing and voluntary nature

of his guilty plea for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d

714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (declaring a claim that a guilty plea was involuntary must be

presented to the district court and is not cognizable on direct appeal). Furthermore,

the attack on his plea is based on arguments that are not properly raised here either:

his contention that the indictment needed to name his co-conspirators was waived by

his guilty plea, see United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.) (holding a

Appellate Case: 06-2425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368684
-3-

valid guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects or errors), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.

148 (2006), and his complaints regarding 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) (explaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims should

generally be raised under § 2255 because normally, such claims cannot be advanced

without development of facts outside record). 

Second, Beltran-Avelos waived any objection to the drug-quantity calculation

because he did not raise the objection at the sentencing hearing, even though the

district court gave him multiple opportunities to do so. See United States v. Hester,

140 F.3d 753, 761-62 (8th Cir. 1998) (declining to consider on appeal objections to

a presentence report defendant waived by not renewing the objections at the

sentencing hearing despite an opportunity to be heard on objections). Moreover, the

mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years trumps the Guideline range based on

the drug-quantity calculation.

Third, construing Beltran-Avelos’s section 851 argument as a contention the

indictment did not state an offense, see United States v. Fitzhugh, 78 F.3d 1326, 1330

(8th Cir. 1996) (stating one type of jurisdictional defect not waived by a guilty plea

is when the indictment on its face fails to state an offense), Beltran-Avelos’s

indictment did not need to allege the elements of the prior sentence-enhancing drug

conviction, see United States v. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 247 (1998)

(ruling a sentence-enhancing prior conviction need not be charged in the indictment).

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2425 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368684