Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Guillermo FRANCO-MARTINEZ, also known as Jorge Ramirez, Appellant; United States of America, Appellee, v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, also known as Raul, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-16
Citations: 271 F.3d 764
Docket Number: Nos. 01-1396NE, 01-1397NE
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Guillermo FRANCO-MARTINEZ, also known as Jorge Ramirez, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, also known as Raul, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, BRIGHT, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 271
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Guillermo FRANCO-MARTINEZ, also known as Jorge Ramirez, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, also known as Raul, Appellant.
Nos. 01-1396NE, 01-1397NE.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 16, 2001.
Filed: Nov. 16, 2001.
Thomas R. Lamb, argued, Lincoln, NE, for G. Franco-Martinez.
Karen M. Shanahan, argued, Omaha, NE, for Saul Cirrillo-Davella.
David W. Stempson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lincoln, NE, for U.S.
Before BYE, BRIGHT, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Two related appeals are before us. Guillermo Franco-Martinez pleaded guilty, under a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to seven years and three months (87 months) in prison. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, a co-defendant, was also convicted on a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to five years and ten months (70 months) in prison. Both defendants appeal, raising separate questions.
Under Mr. Franeo-Martinez's plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend that he "be held responsible for at least 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine." The District Court refused to accept this agreement and held an evidentiary hearing with respect to the appropriate weight to be charged against the defendant. After this hearing, the Court found that the defendant was responsible for a larger quantity. United States v. Cirrillo-Davilla, 124 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Neb.2001). We affirm. Under our cases, the Court was not bound by the stipulation, which, in any event, was phrased as a recommendation only. See United States v. Randolph, 101 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.1996). The Court explained why it made a finding different from that requested by the parties, and it also gave the defendant a chance to renounce the agreement and go to trial. The Court could have accepted the agreement, but the law did not require that it do so. We see no error.
In the companion appeal, Mr. Cirrillo-Davilla argues that the Court erred in denying him a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In making this decision, the District Court made no clearly erroneous findings of fact, nor did it commit any error of law. The District Court's opinion explains its findings in detail. We believe no more extended discussion is necessary.
Affirmed.
. The Hon. Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.