Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03791/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03791-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Scott Hare
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3791

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Aaron Scott Hare, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2004

Filed: July 26, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Hare appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered after he pleaded

guilty to distributing 104.3 grams of a substance containing 52.1 grams of actual

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). We affirm.

The plea agreement and sentencing stipulations provided that the offense in

question was punishable by a statutory term of 10 years to life imprisonment, and that

Hare faced a Guidelines imprisonment range of 120-135 months. At the change-ofAppellate Case: 03-3791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2004 Entry ID: 1791871 
-2-

plea hearing, the district court questioned Hare in conformity with Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11, and Hare affirmed that he understood he faced a 10-year

minimum sentence based on the nature and weight of the drug involved. There were

no objections to the presentence report (PSR), which described the offense conduct

and Guidelines calculations consistent with the plea agreement, and which calculated

a Category III criminal history. Although at sentencing Hare made a pro se request

for a second opinion on the purity of the methamphetamine he sold, his counsel

affirmed Hare’s adherence to the plea agreement, and Hare did not comment further.

The district court--after finding that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered--

sentenced Hare at the bottom of the Guidelines range to 120 months imprisonment

and 5 years supervised release. 

On appeal, Hare contends he entered an unknowing and involuntary stipulation

of fact in his plea agreement. He claims that although he “entered the overall plea

agreement knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently,” he did not understand the

sentencing impact of the drug-purity stipulation. Hare seeks a new sentencing

hearing to allow purity testing, but does not want to withdraw his guilty plea. He also

argues that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history score, but

concedes that the alleged error had no effect on his criminal history category. The

government urges affirmance, and has moved to supplement the record with material

in support of its argument that Hare’s criminal history score was correctly calculated.

We find no merit to Hare’s argument concerning the drug stipulation, as he was

unquestionably advised of the minimum and maximum sentences in his written plea

agreement and during the plea hearing. See United States v. Enriquez, 205 F.3d 345,

348 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890 (2000); United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d

343, 345 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (defendant who pleads guilty has no right to be

apprised of sentencing options outside statutory minimums and maximums); see also

United States v. Castaneda-Villa, 345 F.3d 668, 669 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (no

sentencing error when district court sentenced defendant based on plea stipulations

Appellate Case: 03-3791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2004 Entry ID: 1791871 
-3-

and unobjected-to PSR statements). To the extent Hare is suggesting that his counsel

was ineffective, such a claim must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See

Enriquez, 205 F.3d at 348.

Because the alleged error relating to Hare’s criminal history calculation had no

effect on his sentence, we do not decide the issue. See United States v. Evans, 285

F.3d 664, 674 (8th Cir. 2002) (where no objection was raised, review is for plain

error; no need to decide whether sentencing court plainly erred in criminal history

calculation where alleged error had no effect and thus was harmless), cert. denied,

537 U.S. 1196 (2003). We therefore deny as moot the government’s motion to

supplement the record. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3791 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2004 Entry ID: 1791871