United States v. S. Zarasua-Galvan , 83 F. App'x 147 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-1510
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the District
    * of Nebraska.
    Sebastian Zarasua-Galvan,                 *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 5, 2003
    Filed: December 15, 2003
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Sebastian Zarasua-Galvan (Zarasua) challenges the sentence the district court1
    imposed upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after deportation
    following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2)
    and (b)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing the district court clearly erred in assessing criminal history points
    for a 1992 Nebraska sentence because an interpreter was not provided for any of the
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the District of Nebraska.
    underlying proceedings. Mr. Zarasua, however, cannot collaterally attack his prior
    sentence based on the absence of an interpreter. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment.
    (n.6) (Guideline and commentary do not confer upon defendant any right to attack
    collaterally prior conviction or sentence beyond any such rights otherwise recognized
    in law); United States v. Jones, 
    28 F.3d 69
    , 70 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)
    (Guidelines “simply preclude[d]” defendant from collaterally attacking state
    conviction in federal sentencing proceeding, as he identified no law conferring right
    to attack earlier convictions; Constitution requires federal courts to permit such
    collateral attack only when defendant asserts state court violated defendant’s right to
    appointed counsel).
    Upon reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also
    grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1510

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 147

Filed Date: 12/15/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023