Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02578/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Cortez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James B. Loken stepped down as Chief Judge for the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on March 31,

2010. He has been succeeded by the Honorable William Jay Riley. 

2

 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Jesus Cortez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 8, 2010

 Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN,1

 Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Jesus Medina Cortez appeals the below-guidelines sentence the district court2

imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five or more

kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846.

Appellate Case: 09-2578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651891
-2-

After calculating a guidelines range of 97 to 120 months, the court granted a

government motion for a downward departure based on substantial assistance, and

sentenced Cortez to 60 months’ imprisonment. Under the plea agreement, Cortez

waived his right to appeal unless the sentence exceeded 135 months. 

Cortez challenges neither the validity nor the scope of his waiver. He also does

not allege that imposition of the sentence is a miscarriage of justice. He instead argues

his sentence is unreasonable. This court will not, however, review his reasonableness

claim. See United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791, 795-96 (8th Cir. 2009) (a waiver of

appeal is enforceable where the appeal is within the scope of the waiver, the waiver

was knowing and voluntary, and enforcement would not result in a miscarriage of

justice). 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, this court

affirms the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651891