Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01704/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01704-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Martinez-Soto
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1704

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Sergio Martinez-Soto, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2006

Filed: April 21, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Martinez-Soto pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846; possession of a firearm during the commission of a

drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and a criminal forfeiture

count. The district court*

 imposed consecutive prison terms of 120 months on the

drug-conspiracy charge and 60 months on the gun charge, two concurrent terms of

5 years of supervised release, and a forfeiture of $14,100. On appeal, MartinezAppellate Case: 05-1704 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2006 Entry ID: 2035751
-2-

Soto’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967).

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the imposition of the

statutory mandatory minimum sentences, the argument fails. See United States v.

Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to

depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f),

which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or

defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639,

641 (8th Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate defendant’s

constitutional rights). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issues, we find none. Thus, we affirm the district

court’s judgment, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1704 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2006 Entry ID: 2035751