Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03732/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03732-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earl Aniceto Ochoa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3732

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Earl Aniceto Ochoa, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 23, 2010

Filed: August 2, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Earl Ochoa challenges the statutory mandatory

minimum sentence the district court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to knowingly

and intentionally conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of “actual”

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.

Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

Appellate Case: 09-3732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Entry ID: 3689059
-2-

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Ochoa’s sentence is unreasonable and greater than

necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the district court lacked authority to impose a sentence below

the statutory minimum because the government had not moved for a departure based

on substantial assistance and Ochoa was not eligible for safety-valve relief. See

United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority to depart

from statutory minimum is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when

government moves for departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies

for safety-valve relief); see also United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir.

2006), confirming that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not relate

to statutorily-imposed sentences.

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

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw conditioned on counsel

informing Ochoa about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing

a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Entry ID: 3689059