Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02022/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Maldonado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2022

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Reynaldo Maldonado, also known *

as Edifredo Maldonaldo, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Eddy, *

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: August 28, 2007 

Filed: September 14, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Reynaldo Maldonado pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment charging

him with several drug offenses and a fraud offense, the district court1

 sentenced him

to concurrent prison terms of 168 months on the drug offenses and a concurrent term

of 60 months on the fraud offense, to be followed by concurrent supervised terms of

10, 6, 8, 5, and 3 years. On appeal Maldonado’s counsel has moved to withdraw and

Appellate Case: 06-2022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Entry ID: 3351756
-2-

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not grant a downward variance

based on Maldonado’s history of alcohol abuse and the disparity in Maldonado’s and

a co-defendant’s sentences. Maldonado has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We

affirm.

In determining the sentence, the district court considered Maldonado’s

Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

nothing in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors

committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716,

717-18 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005).

In determining that a downward variance was not warranted, the court considered the

reasons for the differing sentences imposed on Madonado and his co-defendant, cf.

United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876, 880 (8th Cir. 2006) (in evaluating potential

disparity court must compare defendants with similar records who have been found

guilty of similar conduct), and alcohol abuse generally is not a proper ground for a

downward variance, see id. at 879-80 (drug addiction or alcohol abuse are not proper

grounds for downward variance, absent exceptional circumstances).

As for Maldonado’s pro se arguments, his valid guilty plea forecloses his

contention that it was error for him to be absent from the arraignment on the

superseding indictment, see United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.)

(valid guilty plea operates as waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects or errors), cert.

denied, 127 S. Ct. 148 (2006); he cannot now assert as error the lack of an interpreter

at the plea hearing, when he assured the court at the hearing that he understood

English, did not need an interpreter, and would inform the court if he did not

understand the proceedings; cf. Voytik v. United States, 778 F.2d 1306, 1308 (8th Cir.

1985) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of

Appellate Case: 06-2022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Entry ID: 3351756
-3-

verity and pose formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings); and any

ineffective-assistance claims are more properly raised, if at all, in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceedings, see United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

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

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Entry ID: 3351756