Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03802/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03802-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rolando Rodriguez-Valdovinos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3802

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Rolando Rodriguez-Valdovinos, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2009

Filed: February 8, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rolando Rodriguez-Valdovinos was charged in separate indictments with one

count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and one count of being an illegal alien found

in the United States without consent after being deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. §

1326(a) and (b)(2). He entered a guilty plea to the conspiracy charge in exchange for

dismissal of the immigration indictment, and he was sentenced to the mandatory

minimum of 240 months’ imprisonment. Rodriguez-Valdovinos appeals.

Appellate Case: 08-3802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010 Entry ID: 3632167
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Our review of the record indicates that Rodriguez-Valdovinos’s appeal is

without merit. In his brief, Rodriguez-Valdovinos argues that the district court1

should have a duty to inquire of a defendant at a plea colloquy what the defendant

believed would be the sentencing consequences of proceeding to trial. He concedes

that no such duty presently exists, but urges in good-faith that we so hold because this

duty is consistent with existing precedent. We decline his invitation. The district

court did not err in accepting Rodriguez-Valdovinos’s constitutionally valid plea of

guilty. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010 Entry ID: 3632167