Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03628/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03628-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adan Lopez
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. 03-3628

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Adan Lopez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 18, 2004

Filed: June 25, 2004 (Corrected: 7/2/04)

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adan Lopez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams

or more of methamphetamine. The presentence report concluded Lopez would be

eligible for “safety valve” relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, but for his failure to disclose

to the government all information he knew about the offense. See id. § 5C1.2(a)(5).

Lopez did not object to this conclusion in the presentence report. At sentencing,

after defense counsel told the district court*

 there was no reason the court should not

proceed to sentence Lopez, the district court sentenced Lopez at the bottom of the

Appellate Case: 03-3628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781236 
-2-

applicable sentencing guideline range. Later in the hearing, Lopez raised the issue

of a safety valve reduction. Lopez did not explain why he waited until after

pronouncement of the sentence before raising the objection. The district court

refused to entertain the objection, and completed the sentencing process. Lopez now

appeals the district court’s refusal to entertain the safety valve issue. Having

carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law, we conclude the district court

did not abuse its discretion in refusing the entertain Lopez’s untimely objection. See

United States v. Jones, 70 F.3d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47 B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2004 Entry ID: 1781236