United States v. Ricardo Valdovinos , 103 F. App'x 920 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-3949
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,            * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the District
    v.                                * of Nebraska.
    *
    Ricardo Valdovinos,                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.           *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 27, 2004
    Filed: July 30, 2004
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ricardo Valdovinos challenges the sentence the district court* imposed after
    Valdovinos pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute approximately 500
    grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation
    of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Valdovinos’s counsel has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), contending the court should have granted
    Valdovinos safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
    *
    The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    Contrary to counsel's view, the district court could not have granted safety-
    valve relief in this case because Valdovinos did not submit to an interview with the
    government. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 
    328 F.3d 1018
    , 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). In a pro se submission filed after the notice
    of appeal in this matter that we construe as a supplemental brief, Valdovinos appears
    to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim, however, is not
    properly before the court. See United States v. Hughes, 
    330 F.3d 1068
    , 1069 (8th Cir.
    2003).
    We find no nonfrivolous issues after having performed our independent review
    under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988). We thus affirm the judgment of the
    district court, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Valdovinos’s
    motion for new counsel.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-3949

Citation Numbers: 103 F. App'x 920

Filed Date: 7/30/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023