Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03595/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eunicio Torres-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3595

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Eunicio Torres-Hernandez, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: January 26, 2006

Filed: February 24, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eunicio Torres-Hernandez pleaded 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 parties had agreed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) that Torres-Hernandez was responsible for at least

5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms of methamphetamine. Finding him

responsible for 9.52 kilograms, the district court1

 sentenced Torres-Hernandez to 108

months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved

Appellate Case: 04-3595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013255
-2-

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

arguing that the government failed to establish that Torres-Hernandez distributed 9.52

kilograms of methamphetamine during the period of the conspiracy alleged in the

indictment.

We hold that Torres-Hernandez cannot challenge a drug-quantity finding that

falls within the range to which he stipulated under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) in his plea

agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant

who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge

that punishment on appeal). Further, having reviewed the record independently under

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issue.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013255