Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01420/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01420-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Lugo-Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1420

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Daniel Lugo-Sanchez, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: January 18, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lugo-Sanchez challenges the 120-month statutory minimum sentence

the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has

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

arguing that Lugo-Sanchez’s plea was involuntary because he was led to believe he

would be eligible for safety-valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). LugoSanchez has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that his plea was “coerced”

Appellate Case: 05-1420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999435
2

In any event, Lugo-Sanchez’s plea is not rendered involuntary based merely

on an alleged mistaken belief that he would be eligible for safety-valve relief. See

United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d 343, 345 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)

(defendant’s reliance on attorney’s mistaken impression about length of sentence

insufficient to render plea involuntary as long as court informed defendant of

maximum possible sentence).

-2-

because his attorney told him that he would receive a 5-year sentence, and he did not

understand the legal terms used in the proceedings; that he should have been given

a more lenient sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 due to his mental deficiencies; that

his criminal record does not justify the severity of his sentence; and that his sentence

was affected by Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We reject each of these arguments and affirm.

Initially, we note that the involuntary-guilty-plea claim is not properly before

us, as Lugo-Sanchez did not present the claim to the district court, and in fact his

attorney specifically confirmed that Lugo-Sanchez was prepared to proceed with

sentencing after being informed of his ineligibility for safety-valve relief. See United

States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (claim of involuntary guilty plea

must first be presented to district court, and is not cognizable on direct appeal).2

Further, Lugo-Sanchez’s intellectual functioning is not a basis for a sentence

below the mandatory minimum, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), (f); any ineffectiveassistance claim should be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, see United States

v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003); and there was no error under Blakely

or Booker, as Lugo-Sanchez was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum,

see United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005).

Appellate Case: 05-1420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999435
-3-

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999435