USA v. Tapia, Agustine Tenorio
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 28, 2008 Decided April 28, 2008
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGUSTIN TENORIO-TAPIA, also known as MAURO AGUSTIN TENORIO-TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant. Order
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 06 CR 40017 J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.
Agustin Tenorio-Tapia pleaded guilty to reentering the United States without permission, following his removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. He contends on appeal that his sentence of 41 months' imprisonment is excessive because the district court miscalculated his offense level.
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
As part of a plea agreement, Tenorio-Tapia waived the right to appeal his sentence unless "the sentence imposed is in excess of the Sentencing Guidelines (as determined by the Court (or any applicable statutory minimum [sic], whichever is greater)". In exchange for this concession the prosecutor asked the district judge to give Tenorio-Tapia a sentence at the low end of the range, which the judge did. (The range calculated by the presentence report, which was adopted by the district judge, is 41 to 51 months.) Tenorio-Tapia's brief on appeal ignores his waiver. The United States filed a brief invoking the waiver and asking us to dismiss the appeal. Tenorio-Tapia did not file a reply brief, and we cannot see how the appeal can be reconciled with the waiver. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the basis of Tenorio-Tapia's waiver.
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?