Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01612/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01612-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casimiro Torres-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1612

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Casimiro Torres-Morales, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 16, 2004

Filed: December 17, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Casimiro Torres-Morales pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States

after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court1

 sentenced

Torres-Morales to 46 months in prison and 3 years’ supervised release. On appeal,

counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court plainly erred when the court failed to

inform Torres-Morales at the plea hearing of the court’s obligation to apply the

Sentencing Guidelines.

Appellate Case: 04-1612 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2004 Entry ID: 1845892 
-2-

Before accepting a guilty plea, a district court must advise the defendant as to

various aspects of the law, including the court’s obligation to apply the Guidelines

and the court’s discretion to depart from those Guidelines under some circumstances.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(M). We review for plain error unobjected-to omissions

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

55, 58-59 (2002). Although the district court told Torres-Morales only indirectly of

its obligation to apply the Guidelines--the court inquired whether Torres-Morales and

his attorney had discussed how the Guidelines might apply--we do not believe that

any resulting Rule 11 error affected Torres-Morales’s substantial rights. The record

shows that Torres-Morales and his counsel had discussed the Guidelines before the

plea hearing, and even if Torres-Morales did not possess more specific information

about the Guidelines at the time of the plea hearing, this information was made

available to him prior to sentencing, where he reaffirmed his guilty plea.

Significantly, Torres-Morales does not argue on appeal that he would not have

entered the plea had he known that the Guidelines would be applied to him; he merely

argues that the information was “central to the plea decision.” See United States v.

Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004) (defendant who seeks reversal of

conviction after guilty plea, claiming plain error under Rule 11, must show reasonable

probability that, but for error, he would not have entered plea).

We have also carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1612 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2004 Entry ID: 1845892