Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01246/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector Curiel-Galindo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1246

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Hector Curiel-Galindo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

 Filed: September 27, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hector Curiel-Galindo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). In a written plea agreement under Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (authorizing parties to stipulate to specific

sentence; stipulation binds court once it accepts plea agreement), the parties agreed

Curiel-Galindo should be sentenced to 6 months in prison for the violation. After

accepting Curiel-Galindo’s guilty plea and plea agreement, the district court1

sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal,

Appellate Case: 05-1246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956448
-2-

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Curiel-Galindo’s 6-month sentence is unreasonable.

We find that Curiel-Galindo cannot properly challenge his sentence because

he stipulated in his plea agreement to a sentence of 6 months. See United States v.

Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily

exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956448