Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03025/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Madrid-Ojeda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3025

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Rafael Madrid-Ojeda, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2005

Filed: June 10, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Madrid-Ojeda (Madrid) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a

methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846,

and to a criminal forfeiture count. The district court sentenced Madrid to the

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

§ 841(b)(1)(A). Madrid’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

Appellate Case: 04-3025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Entry ID: 1914070
-2-

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Madrid should have been sentenced below the statutory

mandatory minimum term despite his failure to qualify for “safety valve” relief.

The district court did not err in sentencing Madrid to the mandatory minimum,

because it is undisputed that he did not meet all the requirements for safety-valve

relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (listing factors that allow court to sentence below

mandatory minimum); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003)

(finding district court did not have authority to depart below statutory minimum

where government did not file substantial-assistance motion and defendant did not

qualify for safety-valve relief). 

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Entry ID: 1914070