United States v. Juan G. Hernandez , 16 F. App'x 544 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-3751
    ___________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Appellee,                *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Juan Gerardo Hernandez, also known   * Southern District of Iowa.
    as Chapin,                           *
    *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 27, 2001
    Filed: July 31, 2001
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    A jury found Juan Gerardo Hernandez guilty of conspiring to distribute
    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing methamphetamine
    with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court1
    sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Hernandez
    raises five issues on appeal, each of which we reject.
    1
    The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Hernandez’s motion
    for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence of his guilt, see United States
    v. James, 
    172 F.3d 588
    , 591 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); did not clearly err
    in determining Hernandez’s drug quantity based on the testimony of the government
    witnesses, which the court was entitled to believe, see United States v. Milton, 
    153 F.3d 891
    , 898 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review), cert. denied, 
    525 U.S. 1165
    (1999);
    and did not clearly err in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, having found
    that Hernandez perjured himself at trial, see United States v. Molina, 
    172 F.3d 1048
    ,
    1058 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 
    528 U.S. 893
    (1999). Finally, the
    court’s discretionary decisions not to depart downward from the Guidelines are
    unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Lim, 
    235 F.3d 382
    , 385 (8th Cir. 2000).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-