Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03807/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03807-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gustavo Lopez-Tapia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3807

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

Gustavo Lopez-Tapia, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2004

Filed: November 12, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gustavo Lopez-Tapia appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1

 for the District of Nebraska upon his plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced appellant to 240 months

imprisonment and 10 years supervised release. For reversal, counsel for appellant

argues the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for downward

departure based on family hardship. Appellant has moved pro se to file a

Appellate Case: 03-3807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2004 Entry ID: 1833169 
-2-

supplemental brief based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the

reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

After carefully reviewing the record, and in particular the written and oral

remarks of the district court, we conclude that the court was fully aware of its

authority to depart downward but declined to do so based on the facts of this case.

Thus, we hold that the district court made a discretionary decision not to depart

downward, which is unreviewable. See United States v. Walterman, 343 F.3d 938,

942 (8th Cir. 2003).

Given that appellant received the statutory minimum sentence, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A), with no enhancements based on judicially found facts, we conclude

that supplemental briefing based on Blakely is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, we deny the pending motion, and we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2004 Entry ID: 1833169