Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01836/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01836-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Rojas-Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1836

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

David Rojas-Perez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2005

Filed: June 8, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Rojas-Perez appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine

mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. His counsel

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

(1967). Rojas-Perez has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that, because the

district court enhanced his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) (possessing

dangerous weapon in connection with drug offense), he was sentenced on charges not

Appellate Case: 04-1836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912844
-2-

contained in the indictment and the sentence violates his Sixth Amendment rights

under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm.

The pro se arguments fail. Although Rojas-Perez initially objected to the

sentencing enhancement under section 2D1.1(b)(1), he later withdrew his objection.

He is thus foreclosed from raising issues here regarding the section 2D1.1(b)(1)

enhancement. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993) (claim

relinquished below need not be addressed on appeal); United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d

596, 600 (8th Cir. 1999) (issue deliberately waived below is not reviewed, even for

plain error).

Upon careful review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we note that the district court imposed Rojas-Perez’s sentence prior to the

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). While

we now know it was error to apply the federal Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory

fashion, Rojas-Perez has not demonstrated “a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the

appellate record as a whole, that but for the error he would have received a more

favorable sentence.” See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-54 (8th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (plain error review when mandatory-Guidelines issue not raised

below; plain error review is governed by the four-part test of Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-

36). We find no other nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912844