Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03558/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Guitron-Alfredo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3558

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

Jose Guitron-Alfredo, *

* [Unpublished]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2004

Filed: November 9, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Guitron-Alfredo (Guitron) appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1

 for the District of Nebraska upon his guilty plea to conspiring to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1); possessing a firearm in connection with a

drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and a forfeiture count 

Appellate Case: 03-3558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2004 Entry ID: 1831875 
-2-

under 21 U.S.C. § 853. The district court sentenced Guitron to consecutive prison

terms of 120 months on the drug count and 60 months on the firearm count, and two

concurrent 5-year supervised release terms. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing for reversal that

Guitron’s sentence is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment and

is based on the quantity of drugs Guitron possessed without regard to the quality or

purity of the drugs, and because the district court lacked the authority to depart from

the mandatory minimum statutory sentence. In his pro se supplemental brief, Guitron

argues that he did not receive the help he had expected from his counsel and that his

firearm possession conviction is invalid. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

The arguments in the Anders brief are foreclosed by binding precedent. See

Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991) (in noncapital cases, “Congress

has the power to define criminal punishments without giving the courts any

sentencing discretion”); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679-80 (8th Cir.

2003) (mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate Eighth

Amendment); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989)

(mandatory minimum penalties based on quantity of drugs without regard to purity

satisfy due process). The pro se challenge to the firearm charge fails because the

district court established a factual basis for the offense, see United States v. Cuervo,

354 F.3d 969, 990-91 (8th Cir.) (elements of § 924(c) offense), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct

199 (2004), and Guitron admitted that he committed the offense, see Adkins v. United

States, 298 F.2d 842, 844 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (plea of guilty is admission of all

essential elements of indictment), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 954 (1962). We decline to

address Guitron’s ineffective assistance claim, which would be more appropriately

raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where a record can be fully developed. See

United States v. Smith, 378 F.3d 754, 755 (8th Cir. 2004).

Appellate Case: 03-3558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2004 Entry ID: 1831875 
-3-

Following our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3558 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/09/2004 Entry ID: 1831875