Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jose Luis Prieto-Duran, 39 F.3d 1119, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    48 views2 pages
    Jose Luis Prieto-Duran appealed his 72-month sentence for drug offenses, arguing it exceeded the 60-63 month guideline range. However, his plea agreement specified a 72-month sentence under Rule 11(e)(1)(c). The court dismissed the appeal, as 18 U.S.C. 3742(c) bars appeals of sentences at or below those agreed to in a Rule 11 plea agreement. Additionally, the court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw and denied Prieto-Duran's request for new counsel, having found no non-frivolous arguments for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-08 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 39 F.3d 1119 Docket: 94-2071

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jose Luis Prieto-Duran appealed his 72-month sentence for drug offenses, arguing it exceeded the 60-63 month guideline range. However, his plea agreement specified a 72-month sentence under Rule 11(e)(1)(c). The court dismissed the appeal, as 18 U.S.C. 3742(c) bars appeals of sentences at or below those agreed to in a Rule 11 plea agreement. Additionally, the court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw and denied Prieto-Duran's request for new counsel, having found no non-frivolous arguments for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    48 views2 pages

    United States v. Jose Luis Prieto-Duran, 39 F.3d 1119, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jose Luis Prieto-Duran appealed his 72-month sentence for drug offenses, arguing it exceeded the 60-63 month guideline range. However, his plea agreement specified a 72-month sentence under Rule 11(e)(1)(c). The court dismissed the appeal, as 18 U.S.C. 3742(c) bars appeals of sentences at or below those agreed to in a Rule 11 plea agreement. Additionally, the court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw and denied Prieto-Duran's request for new counsel, having found no non-frivolous arguments for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    39 F.

    3d 1119

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Jose Luis PRIETO-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 94-2071.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 8, 1994.

    Submitted on the briefs: *


    Richard C. Cauble, Las Cruces, NM, for defendant-appellant.
    John J. Kelly, U.S. Atty., and Tara C. Neda, Asst. U.S. Atty.,
    Albuquerque, NM, for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit
    Judges.
    McKAY, Circuit Judge.

    Mr. Prieto-Duran appeals the imposition of a seventy-two-month sentence for


    drug offenses. The sentence was pursuant to a valid plea agreement, or
    Memorandum of Understanding, under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1)(c). According
    to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(c), "In the case of a plea agreement that includes a
    specific sentence under rule 11(e)(1)(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
    Procedure a defendant may not file a notice of appeal under paragraph (3) ...
    unless the sentence imposed is greater than the sentence set forth in such
    agreement." Paragraph (3) provides that a defendant may appeal a sentence
    which "is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range."
    Mr. Prieto-Duran received seventy-two months, a sentence to which he
    specifically agreed. He is complaining because the sentencing guidelines
    specified a range of sixty to sixty-three months for the offenses to which he
    pled. However, pursuant to the plea agreement, the government agreed to
    forego filing a sentence enhancement information for prior criminal activities
    under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851. This enhancement would have required a ten-year

    term of imprisonment. This is precisely the type of appeal which is barred by


    18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(c)(1). See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478 (9th
    Cir.1991); United States v. David, 967 F.2d 592 (9th Cir.1992) (unpublished
    opinion). We have no jurisdiction to review the trial court's imposition of
    sentence in this matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
    2

    After review, we have concluded that defendant's counsel properly filed an


    Anders brief in this case. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18
    L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Mr. Prieto-Duran has filed a response to the Anders brief.
    We have considered his arguments and found them to be without merit. In
    addition, because there is no basis for an appeal, appellant's motion for
    appointment of new counsel is denied. Counsel's request for leave to withdraw
    is granted.

    DISMISSED.

    The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for decision on the
    briefs. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.2. After examining the briefs
    and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument
    would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P.
    34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral
    argument

    You might also like