Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03248/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leopoldo Aguado-Guel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3248

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Leopoldo Aguado-Guel, * [UNPUBLISHED]

also known as Jose Howard Canter, *

also known as Josea Juan Cantu, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 4, 2007

Filed: December 6, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leopoldo Aguado-Guel pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States

after being deported subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a), (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced Aguado-Guel to 77 months in prison

and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Aguado-Guel has filed

Appellate Case: 06-3248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2007 Entry ID: 3379493
-2-

a pro se supplemental brief, in which he argues that his attorney and the government

agreed that reference to a prior state felony conviction for unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle would be removed from the indictment because the state court misclassified

it as a felony conviction and the state parole board had “acquitted him.” He also

disputes the facts underlying a family-violence conviction that accounted for a 16-

level increase in his offense level.

Aguado-Guel may not collaterally attack his prior state court convictions. See

United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 294 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2366 (2006). Further, he provides no support for his contention that the government

and his counsel had agreed to remove from the indictment any reference to the prior

felony conviction, and any complaint he has about his counsel should be raised, if at

all, in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To the

extent Aguado-Guel argues that his family-violence conviction did not trigger the 16-

level enhancement he received, counsel did not raise that argument at sentencing, and

we find the court did not err (plainly or otherwise) in applying the enhancement. See

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (offense level is increased 16 levels if defendant was

previously deported after felony conviction for crime of violence); United States v.

Allmon, 500 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); United States v.

Lopez-Zepeda, 466 F.3d 651, 653 (8th Cir. 2006) (categorical approach used to

determine whether prior conviction was for crime of violence).

We have also carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Aguado-Guel’s motions to supplement

the record. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2007 Entry ID: 3379493