Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02043/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02043-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Metodio Gutierrez
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. 04-2043

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Metodio Gutierrez, also known as *

Gordo, also known as Juan Ramirez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

also known as Salvador Gutierrez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2005 

Filed: February 7, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Metodio Gutierrez (Gutierrez) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after Gutierrez pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1), and 846. The district court sentenced Gutierrez to the

mandatory statutory minimum of 120 months imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 04-2043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864275 
-2-

§ 841(b)(1)(A). Gutierrez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Gutierrez’s sentence is too

harsh and the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional as a whole. These

arguments do not entitle Gutierrez to relief, because he was sentenced, independent

of the Guidelines, to the statutory mandatory minimum, based on the stipulated drug

quantity. To the extent Gutierrez is raising a constitutional challenge to the use of a

mandatory minimum, his argument fails. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672,

679 (8th Cir. 2003). Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Entry ID: 1864275