Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01297/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isidro Terriquez Chavez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1297

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Isidro Terriquez Chavez, *

also known as Isidro Terriquez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2005

Filed: December 6, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Isidro Terriquez Chavez (Chavez) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 70 months’

imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In his pro

Appellate Case: 05-1297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982484
-2-

se supplemental brief, Chavez argues that the district court violated United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We reject that argument for the following reasons.

Chavez failed to raise any objection below, limiting our review to plain error.

Applying the test we adopted in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550-53 (8th

Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005), we conclude Chavez cannot satisfy

his burden to show the error of sentencing under a mandatory system affected his

substantial rights. Although Chavez received a sentence at the bottom of the

Guidelines range, we have held this is not by itself a sufficient showing, see id. at 553,

and the district court gave no indication at sentencing or elsewhere in the record it

would have imposed a more favorable sentence under advisory Guidelines, see United

States v. Wunder, 414 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2005).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. We deny Chavez’s pending motion to compel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2005 Entry ID: 1982484