Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01835/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01835-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Patrick Jimenez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1835

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Raymond Patrick Jimenez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2007

Filed: September 18, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Patrick Jimenez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams

or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)

and 846, and the district court1

 sentenced him to 121 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. Jimenez appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the government’s failure to move for

a downward departure, and the assessment of two criminal history points for his prior

sentences. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2007 Entry ID: 3352772
-2-

The plea agreement did not include language discussing the possibility of a

downward departure in exchange for substantial assistance, see United States v.

Godinez, 474 F.3d 1039, 1044 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting government does not have duty

to move to depart based on substantial assistance unless plea agreement created one),

and Jimenez did not attempt at sentencing to overcome the presumption of validity

accompanying his prior state convictions cited in the presentence report, see United

States v. Moore, 245 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2001), or to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that his convictions were constitutionally invalid, see United States

v. Stapleton, 316 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 2003). Rather, defense counsel conceded

that he had obtained the records for the conviction questioned by Jimenez, and that the

conviction was valid; and we find that the court’s criminal history calculation was

correct, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c); § 4A1.2(c)(1).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the

oral pronouncement of Jimenez’s sentence, which governs, conflicts with the written

judgment. See United States v. Weir, 724 F.2d 94, 95 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)

(oral sentence and not written order constitutes actual judgment of court); United

States v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (oral

pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment). We therefore direct the district

court to modify the written judgment, which currently reflects a sentence of 120

months in prison, to conform to the oral pronouncement of a 121-month sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, as modified, and

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about

the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2007 Entry ID: 3352772