Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02234/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angel Abarca Sandoval
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2234

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Angel Abarca Sandoval, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2005

Filed: November 7, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angel Abarca Sandoval appeals the statutory minimum sentence the district

court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). For reversal, he argues that the district court erred by

not making final findings of fact when denying safety-valve relief under

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Sandoval also contends that his attorney

was ineffective for failing to object or to put on evidence regarding his eligibility for

Appellate Case: 04-2234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2005 Entry ID: 1972108
-2-

safety-valve relief, and that his guilty plea was not voluntary because he was led to

believe by his counsel, the interpreter, and the government that he would qualify for

safety-valve relief if he pleaded guilty.

We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in its safety-valve ruling,

because Sandoval’s counsel conceded at sentencing that Sandoval had not been able

to satisfy one of the requirements for safety-valve relief – truthfully providing the

government before sentencing with all information regarding the offense. See United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993) (appellate court may correct plain error

affecting substantial rights where question was not specifically urged below); United

States v. Rios, 171 F.3d 565, 566 (8th Cir. 1999) (where at sentencing defendant

failed to dispute government’s contention that he did not qualify for safety-valve

relief, denying safety-valve relief was not plain error, and it would have been plain

error to apply safety valve provision). Sandoval’s claim of ineffective assistance, and

his related claim of an involuntary plea, are not properly before us in this direct

criminal appeal. See United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 654 (8th Cir. 2004)

(ineffective-assistance claim), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2962 (2005); United States v.

Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (involuntary-plea claim).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending pro se motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2005 Entry ID: 1972108