Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto ARTEAGA-MENDEZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 131 F. App'x 502
Docket Number: No. 04-2143
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto ARTEAGA-MENDEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roberto ARTEAGA-MENDEZ, Appellant.
No. 04-2143.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2005.
Decided: May 16, 2005.
Debra L. Scorpiniti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.
Roberto Arteaga-Mendez, Des Moines, IA, pro se. ■
Before BENTON, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Arteaga-Mendez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. In the written plea agreement, Arteaga-Mendez stipulated that he was responsible for between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. Based on this drug quantity, the district court sentenced Arteaga-Mendez to 135 months in prison, fifteen months more than the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Arteaga-Mendez appeals his sentence, arguing the Government failed to establish a factual basis for his plea. Based on Arteaga-Mendez's responses during the plea colloquy, the written plea agreement, and the agreement's stipulation of facts, however, the district court could reasonably decide Arteaga-Mendez likely committed the offense. See United States v. Gamble, 327 F.3d 662, 664 (8th Cir.2003). Although he made no objection in the district court, Arteaga-Mendez also 'challenges the district court's finding of drug quantity. The district court did not commit plain error because its drug quantity finding is based on Arteaga-Mendez's drug quantity stipulation and the unchallenged drug quantity calculation contained in the PSR. See United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir.1993). We note Arteaga-Mendez does not raise any argument under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
We thus affirm Arteaga-Mendez's sentence.
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.