Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03120/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Camacho-Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3120

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Alejandro Camacho-Lopez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2004

Filed: May 6, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Camacho-Lopez (Camacho) appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. His counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Camacho has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Appellate Case: 03-3120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2004 Entry ID: 1764391 
-2-

Camacho pleaded guilty to entering the United States after having been

previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction, namely a 1992 state

aggravated-assault conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district

court granted Camacho’s motion for downward departure based on his overstated

criminal history, and reduced his criminal history category from III to II. The court

sentenced Camacho to 41 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. 

In the Anders brief, counsel suggests the district court erred by not departing

further. This issue is unreviewable. See United States v. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th

Cir. 1993) (extent of district court’s downward departure is unreviewable on appeal,

regardless of court’s reasons for refraining from departing further). In his pro se

submissions, Camacho argues that both his counsel in the instant proceedings and the

attorney who represented him on the state aggravated-assault charge were ineffective.

The claim as to current counsel is more appropriately raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceedings, see United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995), and

Camacho cannot collaterally attack his prior state conviction in proceedings for the

instant offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.6) (Guidelines do not confer upon

defendant any right to attack collaterally prior conviction or sentence beyond any

such rights otherwise recognized in law).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2004 Entry ID: 1764391