Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02870/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02870-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan C. Aguilar
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2870

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Juan C. Aguilar, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2007

Filed: December 19, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan C. Aguilar brings this appeal to challenge the size of the Rule 35(b)

reduction in sentence that was granted by the district court.1

 As we explain below,

Aguilar’s appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Aguilar pled guilty in November 2003 to

violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), conceding that

he had conspired to traffic in 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and possessed

Appellate Case: 07-2870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2007 Entry ID: 3383834
-2-

a firearm in furtherance of the crime. Aguilar agreed to cooperate with other

government investigations in exchange for the government’s potential request for a

downward departure or request for a reduced sentence. 

The district court initially sentenced Aguilar to 188 months of imprisonment for

the drug conspiracy charge, in addition to a mandatory consecutive 60 months for the

firearm charge. A year later, the government filed a motion to reduce Aguilar’s

sentence by 25% pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The district court granted the motion and reduced the drug conspiracy sentence to 134

months, but maintained the 60 month firearm sentence. In response to a question by

the Assistant United States Attorney, the district court confirmed that the 60 month

sentence was to run consecutively with the drug conspiracy sentence. Neither Aguilar

nor his counsel sought further clarification from the court. Aguilar now argues that

the district court did not recognize its authority to reduce Aguilar’s sentence for the

firearm charge.

Appellate jurisdiction over a defendant’s Rule 35(b) sentence reduction is

governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). United States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th

Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Absent an unconstitutional motive, we lack jurisdiction to

review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion. Id.; United States v. Sykes,

356 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir. 2004). There is no allegation of an unconstitutional

motive on the part of the district court. Aguilar suggests that we may review the

discretionary denial of a motion for a reduction in sentence if the district court

determined that it lacked the authority to consider such a motion. But he did not

object to the maintenance of the 60-month firearm sentence and did not seek a

declaration as to whether the district court had the authority to reduce it. There is no

basis for Aguilar’s argument. 

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2007 Entry ID: 3383834