Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01986/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01986-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Hernandez-Nuno
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1986

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Jose Hernandez-Nuno, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2004

Filed: December 27, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Hernandez-Nuno (Hernandez) appeals the sentence the district court*

imposed after Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. His counsel has moved to

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

the district court committed plain error when the court failed to comply with Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(I) and (M) in taking Hernandez’s guilty plea.

Hernandez has filed a supplemental brief, arguing he pleaded guilty only because he

Appellate Case: 04-1986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2004 Entry ID: 1848691 
-2-

believed the district court would order his federal sentence to run concurrently with

his state sentence, and defense counsel was ineffective.

These arguments fail. The district court did not commit plain error in taking

Hernandez’s guilty plea because, even if the court did not strictly comply with Rule

11, Hernandez failed to show his substantial rights were affected. See United States

v. Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

55, 58-59 (2002). Further, the district court structured Hernandez’s federal sentence

to run concurrently with his state sentence, and Hernandez’s ineffective-assistance

claims are not properly before us. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069

(8th Cir. 2003). Upon our independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2004 Entry ID: 1848691