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Coronel, also known as Isidro Coronel- * [UNPUBLISHED]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 conspiracy 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 entered an unconditional guilty plea. The district

judge accepted Perez-Coronel’s guilty plea and deferred acceptance of the plea

agreement until sentencing. The plea agreement stated the Government would file a

motion requesting a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines only if the

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 withdraw his guilty plea. The district

court also denied this motion.

Perez-Coronel first contends the district court committed error in denying his

motion to dismiss the indictment because Hispanics were unconstitutionally

underrepresented on the grand jury and because the grand jury selection process

systematically excludes Hispanics. Perez-Coronel waived this argument by entering an

unconditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion to 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).

Perez-Coronel also contends the district court committed error by denying his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea after the Government refused to file a motion for

downward departure. Contrary to Perez-Coronel’s contention that the Government acted

in bad faith, the plea agreement did not require that the Government file a motion for

downward departure unless the Government decided Perez-Coronel provided substantial

assistance in the investigation or prosecution of others. Having reviewed the record, we

agree 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

threshold 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 district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Perez-Coronel’s request to

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.