Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01627/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01627-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Lopez-Aguilar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1627

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Paul Lopez-Aguilar, * District of Nebraska.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2005 

Filed: December 28, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Paul Lopez-Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possessing a firearm during a drugtrafficking crime, see 21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the district court1

sentenced him to 228 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release.

Lopez-Aguilar did not appeal. The government later filed a Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Lopez-Aguilar’s sentence based on his substantial

Appellate Case: 05-1627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990517
-2-

assistance, and the district court reduced his sentence from 228 months to 135 months

imprisonment. Lopez-Aguilar appeals, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the district court abused its discretion by not

imposing an even lower sentence. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to

depart further is unreviewable. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599

(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of Rule 35(b) reduction held

unreviewable, because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward

departure is not reviewable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 184 (2005); United States v.

Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not

reviewable unless defendant makes substantial showing that court’s decision was

based on unconstitutional motive). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990517