## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1920NE

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Isidro Perez-Coronel, also known as * of Nebraska. Isidro Perez, also known as Isidro * Coronel, also known as Isidro Coronel- * [UNPUBLISHED] Perez, also known as Rico, * * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: October 23, 1998

Filed: October 28, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, ROSS, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Isidro Perez-Coronel was indicted for cons piracy to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). After the district court denied Perez-Coronel’s motion to dismiss the indictment, Perez-Coronel ent ered an unconditional guilty plea. The district judg e accepted Perez-Coronel’s guilty plea and deferred acceptance of the ple a agreemen t

until sentencing. The plea agreement stated the Government would file a mot ion requesting a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines only if th e Government determined Perez-Coronel had provided substantial assistance in the-2-

investigation or prosecution of others. When the Government refused to file a motion for downward departure, Perez-Coronel moved to w ithdraw his guilty plea. The district court also denied this motion.
Perez-Co ronel first contends the district court committed error in denying hi s motion to dismiss the indictment because Hispanics were unconstitutionall y underrepresented on the grand jury and because the grand jury selection proces s systematically excludes Hispan ics. Perez-Coronel waived this argument by entering an unconditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion t o dismiss. See United States v. Vaughan , 13 F.3d 1186, 1187-88 (8th Cir. 1994). Even if we were to consider the merits of Perez-Coronel’s challenge to the District of Nebraska’s grand jury selection process, that

challenge is foreclosed by this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Sanchez , No. 97-4217, 1998 WL 661197, at *7-9 (8th Cir. Sept. 28, 1998).
Pe rez-Coronel also contends the district court committed error by denying hi s motion to withdraw his guilty plea after the Government refused to file a motion fo r downward departure. Contrary to Perez-Coronel’s contention that the Governme nt acted in bad faith, the plea agreement did not require that the Government file a motion fo r downward departure unless the Government decided Perez-Coronelprovided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of others. Having reviewed the record, we agre e with the district court that Perez-Coronel was not entitled to relief on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Perez-Coronel failed to make the required substantial threshol d showing of prosecutorial discrimination or irrational conduct. See Wade v

. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992); United States v. Kelly , 18 F. 3d 612, 617-18 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Romsey , 975 F.2d 556, 557-58 (8th Cir. 1992). Thus, the dis trict court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Perez-Coronel’s request t o withdraw his guilty plea. See Kelly , 18 F.3d at 618-19.
We find no reversible error and affirm without further discussion.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.