Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03131/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Serrano Lopez
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. 05-3131

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Arturo Serrano Lopez, also known as *

Sparky, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2006

Filed: August 16, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arturo Serrano Lopez (Serrano Lopez) pled guilty to possessing with intent to

distribute more than five grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced Serrano Lopez, consistent with

his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to 72 months’

imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. His counsel moved for leave to

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

Appellate Case: 05-3131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078793
-2-

Serrano Lopez’s sentence is greater than necessary to promote the goals of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). Serrano Lopez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Serrano Lopez cannot properly challenge the sentence to which he stipulated

in his plea agreement, because he voluntarily exposed himself to a specific

punishment, and because in his plea agreement Serrano Lopez waived his right to

appeal, which we enforce. See United States v. Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir.

2006) (“defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence

may not challenge that punishment on appeal”); United States v. Bateman, 119 F.

App’x. 17, 18 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (appeal waiver will be enforced when

defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to appeal). Further, having

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude there

are no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2006 Entry ID: 2078793