US v. Freddy Hurtado
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDDY HURTADO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00014-RLV-CH-3)
October 14, 2008
October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Hitchens, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. HITCHENS, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Freddy Hurtado appeals from his mandatory minimum
240-month sentence imposed after he received a downward variance and after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin. Hurtado's counsel filed an
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, Hurtado filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Hurtado argues that his plea was involuntary because he believed he would receive one less drug felony in the 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) information and the Government would file a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2006) motion. requests a sentence below the statutory minimum. request that his guilty plea be He
He does not however.
Hurtado's plea agreement does not contain a promise that the Government would file a § 5K1.1 motion. The Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing transcript clearly indicates that the plea was based on leaving off one of Hurtado's drug felonies in the § 851
information but that the Government would not file a § 5K1.1 motion. and that Hurtado agreed with the summary of the plea agreement no other agreements were made outside the plea
agreement. Hurtado's Government to move plea for a agreement § 5K1.1 2 did not obligate if the
provided substantial assistance.
Hurtado does not allege, and
the record does not disclose, any evidence that the Government refused to make the motion based on any unconstitutional motive. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992) (holding that "federal district courts have authority to review a
prosecutor's refusal to file a substantial assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive."). Therefore, Hurtado's claim fails.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hurtado's conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?