Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03949/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03949-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ricardo Valdovinos
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3949

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Ricardo Valdovinos, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2004

Filed: July 30, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Valdovinos challenges the sentence the district court*

 imposed after

Valdovinos pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute approximately 500

grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Valdovinos’s counsel has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending the court should have granted

Valdovinos safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

Appellate Case: 03-3949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2004 Entry ID: 1794065 
-2-

Contrary to counsel's view, the district court could not have granted safetyvalve relief in this case because Valdovinos did not submit to an interview with the

government. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 328 F.3d

1018, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). In a pro se submission filed after the notice

of appeal in this matter that we construe as a supplemental brief, Valdovinos appears

to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim, however, is not

properly before the court. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.

2003). 

We find no nonfrivolous issues after having performed our independent review

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We thus affirm the judgment of the

district court, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Valdovinos’s

motion for new counsel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2004 Entry ID: 1794065