Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02966/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Corona-Moret
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2966

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

Francisco Corona-Moret, also known *

as Francisco Corona-Verduzco, also *

known as Pallin LNU, also known as *

Javier Corona-Verduzco, *

*

Appellant. *

* Appeal from the United States

------------------------ * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Francisco Corona-Moret, also known *

as Francisco Corona-Verduzco, also *

known as Javier Corona-Verduzco, *

also known as Pallin, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 29, 2007

Filed: December 10, 2007

___________

Appellate Case: 06-2966 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380492
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Corona-Moret appeals the sentences the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty in two consolidated cases to possessing 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(A); conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; unlawfully entering the

United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326;

and intimidating an individual with the intent to prevent that person’s testimony in an

official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). On appeal, his counsel has

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

(1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable and violates the Eighth

Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. For the reasons discussed

below, we modify one of the judgments to correct clerical errors, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments as modified.

At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 135

to 168 months in prison. The court then expressly stated its intent to sentence CoronaMoret at the bottom of his Guidelines range: a “total” term of 135 months. The court

imposed concurrent prison terms of 135 months on the possession count, 24 months

on the illegal re-entry count, and 120 months on the witness-intimidation count.

Although the court did not impose a specific sentence on the conspiracy count, it

stated that “in case 00368,” which included the conspiracy count, “the sentence would

be 135 months, the same as the sentence in case number 00194.”

Appellate Case: 06-2966 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380492
-3-

Reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we conclude from the entire sentencing pronouncement that the district court

intended to sentence Corona-Moret to a term of 135 months in prison for the

conspiracy offense. See United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994)

(if actual verbal judgment is ambiguous, intent of sentencing court may be construed

from entire sentencing pronouncement). However, the written judgment for case

number 4:05-cr-00368 incorrectly states that a 168-month prison term was imposed

on the first count, and also incorrectly describes this count as charging a possession

offense, rather than a conspiracy offense. Accordingly, we modify the judgment in

that case to reflect a 135-month sentence on Count One, charging Corona-Moret with

conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may

modify any judgment of court brought before it for review); United States v. Raftis,

427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (oral pronouncement prevails over

contrary judgment); see also United States v. Mills, 9 F.3d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir. 1993)

(modifying sentence instead of remanding where there was no doubt of district court’s

intent and it would waste judicial resources to remand case). 

As to the issues raised by counsel in the Anders brief, we conclude that appeal

waivers contained in Corona-Moret’s plea agreements preclude a challenge to the

reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890 (8th

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (defendant must enter into plea agreement and waiver knowingly

and voluntarily for these agreements to be valid); United States v. Estrada-Bahena,

201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders

case). We also conclude that, to the extent the Eighth Amendment argument falls

outside the scope of the appeal waivers, Corona-Moret’s 135-month sentence does not

violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)

(statutory imprisonment range for violation involving 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine is 10 years to life); United States v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th

Appellate Case: 06-2966 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380492
-4-

Cir. 2007) (“It is rare for a term of years within the authorized statutory range to

violate the Eighth Amendment.”).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the

judgments as modified.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2966 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380492