Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02461/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02461-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Efrain Ayon-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2461

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Efrain Ayon-Lopez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2010

Filed: June 2, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Efrain Ayon-Lopez pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute and

aiding and abetting another or others to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court,1

 after calculating an

advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 262-327 months, granted Ayon-Lopez’s

motion for a downward variance and sentenced him to 230 months in prison and 5

Appellate Case: 09-2461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Entry ID: 3670286
-2-

years of supervised release. On appeal, Ayon-Lopez suggests that he should have also

received a downward departure based on substantial assistance, that he should not

have received a Guidelines enhancement for being a manager or supervisor, and that

his counsel was ineffective.

We first note that the district court lacked authority to depart downward based

on substantial assistance, because the government did not file a substantial-assistance

motion and nothing in the record suggests that the government acted improperly. See

United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 672, 676 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (absent motion

by government, district court generally lacks authority to grant downward departure

based on defendant’s substantial assistance; if government expressly reserves

discretion through plea agreement, this court will perform only limited review of

decision not to file motion for downward departure for substantial assistance;

exception to otherwise broad discretion of government to file motion for substantial

assistance is triggered when government’s refusal was irrational, in bad faith, or based

on unconstitutional motive). Second, we conclude that Ayon-Lopez cannot challenge

the Guidelines enhancement for being a manager or supervisor, because he withdrew

that objection below. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir.

2002) (where defendant withdrew objections in district court, including objection to

Guidelines enhancement for being manager or supervisor, he was precluded from

raising those objections on appeal). Third, we decline to consider Ayon-Lopez’s

ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d

1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be raised

in motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

We also conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable

sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc) (standards for reviewing sentence). The court did not commit any procedural

error, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(D); United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d

600, 607 (8th Cir. 2009) (court need not engage in mechanical recitation of § 3553(a)

Appellate Case: 09-2461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Entry ID: 3670286
-3-

factors, and need only set forth enough to satisfy appellate court that it considered

parties’ arguments and had reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority), and there is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a

clear error in weighing the factors, see United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879, 890

(8th Cir.) (describing circumstances where district court abuses its discretion and

imposes unreasonable sentence), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 770 (2008).

We have independently reviewed the record and have found no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2461 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Entry ID: 3670286