1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2592

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Blaz Ramirez-Fuentes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2008

Filed: August 5, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Blaz Ramirez-Fuentes pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute

at least 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture within 1,000 feet of property

comprising a public playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),

846, and 860(a); and one count of possession with intent to distribute at least 500

grams of a methamphetamine mixture within 1,000 feet of property comprising a

public playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 860(a). The

district court1

 imposed a prison term of 151 months on each count, to run
-2-

concurrently. On appeal, Ramirez-Fuentes’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the

district court violated Ramirez-Fuentes’s due process rights by calculating his

Guidelines range based in part on information in the presentence report (PSR)

obtained from a laboratory report that was not disclosed to Ramirez-Fuentes prior to

his guilty plea. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court substantially

complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, and that there is no merit to

Ramirez-Fuentes’s challenge to the district court’s use of the laboratory report. See

United States v. Saffeels, 39 F.3d 833, 835 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that Rule 32

operates to permit assertion and resolution of claims of inaccuracy in PSR before

sentencing). We also note that counsel informed the district court prior to RamirezFuentes’s sentencing that Ramirez-Fuentes did not wish to withdraw his guilty plea

despite the nondisclosure of the laboratory report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (error

that does not affect substantial rights is disregarded).

We further conclude that the district court properly calculated RamirezFuentes’s Guidelines range. See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014

(8th Cir.) (court reviews district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its

application of Guidelines de novo), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 316 (2007); United States

v. Milton, 153 F.3d 891, 898 (8th Cir. 1998) (district court may rely upon estimates

that have sufficient accuracy, and its drug-quantity determinations are reviewed for

clear error).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

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

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

inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for

certiorari. Ramirez-Fuentes’s motion for appointment of new counsel is denied.

______________________________