Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03283/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eleazar Villegas Carreon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota. 

Eleazar Villegas Carreon, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

Filed: December 10, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eleazar Villegas Carreon pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute

more than 50 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court1

 sentenced Villegas Carreon

within the advisory guideline range to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment. Villegas

Carreon argues that the court erred by failing to enforce an alleged stipulation that his

base offense level under the advisory guidelines was 32, rather than 36, as found by

Appellate Case: 06-3283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380527
-2-

the district court. He also contends that the sentence imposed was “constitutionally

unreasonable.” We affirm.

Villegas Carreon was indicted on December 20, 2005, and he pled not guilty.

He appeared for a change-of-plea hearing on March 10, 2006, but the hearing was

terminated before the court accepted a plea of guilty. Villegas Carreon asserts that his

appearance at this hearing was pursuant to a document entitled “Plea Agreement and

Sentencing Stipulations,” which provided that he would plead guilty to a conspiracy

to distribute methamphetamine, and included an assertion by the government that

Villegas Carreon’s base offense level under the advisory guidelines should be 32.

This document was discussed at the hearing on March 10, but it was not entered into

the record. During the hearing, the prosecutor did ask Villegas Carreon whether he

agreed with a provision in the plea agreement that his base offense level would be 32,

and he averred that he did. Before the district court was satisfied that the record

established a factual basis for the plea, however, Villegas Carreon’s counsel stated

that Villegas Carreon was not ready to proceed, and the hearing was adjourned. The

district court neither accepted a plea agreement nor accepted a plea of guilty on March

10.

Villegas Carreon appeared again for a change of plea on April 11, 2006. At this

hearing, the parties submitted a different plea agreement, which set forth two

“possible” guideline calculations, “[d]epending on the Court’s determination of

guideline factors.” These alternatives were premised on a base offense level of 36 and

32, respectively. Villegas Carreon contends that the government changed its position

regarding the base offense level between March 10 and April 11 as a result of

additional testing on the purity of methamphetamine that was seized during the

investigation of Villegas Carreon. At the April 11 hearing, the district court accepted

the plea agreement and Villegas Carreon’s plea of guilty. A signed copy of this plea

agreement is included in the record.

Appellate Case: 06-3283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380527
-3-

At a sentencing hearing on August 29, 2006, the court found that the quantity

of drugs for which Villegas Carreon was accountable resulted in a base offense level

of 36. After other adjustments, the court arrived at an advisory guideline range of 108

to 135 months’ imprisonment, and sentenced Villegas Carreon at the low end of that

range.

Villegas Carreon contends on appeal that the government failed to abide by a

stipulation in the first proposed plea agreement to recommend a base offense level of

32, and that its advocacy at the sentencing hearing thus violated the Due Process

Clause. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 507 (1984). He did not raise this

contention in the district court, so we review only for plain error. We conclude that

there was no error. 

“A plea bargain standing alone is without constitutional significance; in itself

it is a mere executory agreement which, until embodied in a judgment of a court, does

not deprive an accused of liberty or any other constitutionally protected interest.” Id.

Because the district court on March 10 did not accept either the first proposed plea

agreement or Villegas Carreon’s plea of guilty, and because there is no suggestion that

the government gained any unfair advantage through any promise that might have

been made in the first proposed agreement, the government was not bound by any

stipulation contained in that document. United States v. Norris, 486 F.3d 1045, 1048-

49 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (plurality opinion); id. at 1053 (concurring opinion). The

government’s advocacy at sentencing was consistent with the second proposed plea

agreement, which was signed by both parties and accepted by the district court.

Accordingly, there was no violation of Villegas Carreon’s rights under the Due

Process Clause.

Villegas Carreon also argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was

“constitutionally unreasonable.” Although he cites 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), his argument

proceeds from the premise that the government violated his rights by breaching the

Appellate Case: 06-3283 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380527
-4-

first proposed agreement. That agreement was never accepted by the district court,

so for the reasons discussed, we reject Villegas Carreon’s assertion that his sentence

was unconstitutional. Insofar as § 3553(a) is concerned, Villegas Carreon has

advanced no reasons to convince us that the district court unreasonably sentenced him

to a term of imprisonment within the advisory guideline range. See Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). Therefore, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3283 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380527