Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03061/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Ivan Romero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3061

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Jesus Ivan Romero, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Jesus Ivan Romero with a drug conspiracy and a

firearm offense. In a tentative plea agreement, Romero agreed to plead guilty to the

firearm charge and testify truthfully against other suspects in exchange for dismissal

of the conspiracy charge. After Romero refused to testify, however, the Government

withdrew the offer to drop the conspiracy charge. Concluding Romero did not fulfill

the plea offer’s conditions, the district court*

 rejected Romero’s motion for specific

enforcement. Without reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his

Appellate Case: 05-3061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977648
-2-

motion to compel specific performance, Romero pleaded guilty to a different charge:

aiding and abetting a drug transaction. The district court sentenced Romero to 151

months in prison. 

On appeal, Romero claims he is entitled to specific performance of the

withdrawn plea offer, despite his refusal to accept its terms. Romero waived this

claim by his unconditional guilty plea to a different charge. United States v.

Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000) (guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional

defenses). Even if the issue were appealable, the district court correctly ruled Romero

was not entitled to specific performance because he refused to agree to the offer’s

condition that he testify against other suspects. See United States v. Ayd, 25 F.3d

624, 626 (8th Cir. 1994) (government may withdraw offer when defendant cannot

perform conditions).

Romero also asserts the district court committed error in refusing to grant him

a minor role reduction. This assertion fails because Romero did not carry his burden

to prove he was entitled to the reduction. United States v. Johnson, 358 F.3d 1016,

1018 (8th Cir. 2004). Romero offered no evidence in support of the reduction and the

undisputed facts did not support the reduction. 

We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977648