Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02681/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Lopez Nunez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2681

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Marcos Lopez Nunez, also known as *

Marcos Nunez Lopez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: July 1, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marcos Nunez (Nunez) appeals the 135-month sentence the district court1

imposed upon his plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Nunez’s counsel

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

asserting Nunez’s criminal history was overstated, but Nunez waived his appeal rights

in his plea agreement. Nunez filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing the two prior

Appellate Case: 04-2681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2005 Entry ID: 1923241
-2-

convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) should not have been assessed

criminal history points, because in each case he received probation and was not

represented by counsel; and the appeal waiver is invalid. Having reviewed the record

and found no waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement, we address the merits

and affirm. 

The district court did not clearly err in departing under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1)

from a Category IV criminal history to a Category III (as opposed to Nunez’s

requested Category II), see United States v. Greger, 339 F.3d 666, 670 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review); and did not err in counting the prior DWI convictions, see

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.2) (sentence of probation is to be treated as sentence

under § 4A1.1(c) (add 1 point for prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b)) unless

condition of probation required imprisonment of at least 60 days); United States v.

Nichols, 511 U.S. 738, 746-47 (1994) (holding an uncounseled misdemeanor

conviction is valid because no prison term was imposed, and the conviction may be

used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent offense). 

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2005 Entry ID: 1923241