Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03403/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03403-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Aguilera-Alvarado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Juan Carlos Aguilera-Alvarado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: July 23, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Carlos Aguilera-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation following an aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment

and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Aguilera-Alvarado’s counsel has moved

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

Appellate Case: 03-3403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2004 Entry ID: 1791391 
-2-

After careful review, we find the issues counsel raises unavailing. By pleading

guilty unconditionally, Aguilera-Alvarado waived any suppression issue, cf. United

States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000) (defendant waived right to

appeal denial of his motion to suppress where he did not enter conditional guilty plea

reserving right to appeal denial of motion); the prosecutor’s recital of the date of the

offense as being one day earlier than that stated in the indictment did not

constructively amend the indictment, cf. United States v. Harris, 344 F.3d 803, 804-

05 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (where defendant’s admitted possession of firearm on

October 9 was “reasonably near” October 16 date alleged in indictment, conduct was

within scope of indictment and there was no constructive amendment), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 1463 (2004); and counsel fails to point to anything in the record that would

call into question the district court’s finding that Aguilera-Alvarado was competent

and made the plea voluntarily and knowingly.

Further, a 16-level offense-level enhancement was properly applied based on

Aguilera-Alvarado’s prior California conviction for robbery, see United States v.

Valladares, 304 F.3d 1300, 1301-03 (8th Cir. 2002), and did not violate Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), see United States v. Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976,

977 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 898 (2001). We also find that the district court

did not commit error in imposing a $1,000 fine, an amount significantly less than the

calculated range. Last, we decline to consider a constitutional challenge to the

PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21 § 401, 117 Stat. 650, 657 (2003), amending 18

U.S.C. § 3742(e), raised for the first time on appeal. See Liberty State Bank v. Minn.

Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 149 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 1998). 

We also have carefully reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2004 Entry ID: 1791391