United States v. Jacinto Frias-Gonzale


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4187109-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. James Edwin Moore subject to counsel advising appellant of the procedures for filing a pro se petition for rehearing or writ of cert as to Part V of the court's order to implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1968. Denying [4195507-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales. [4232448] [14-2485]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2485 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: January 6, 2015 Filed: January 8, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jacinto Frias-Gonzales directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term within his calculated 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 14-2485 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015 Entry ID: 4232448 Guidelines range. Defense counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Frias-Gonzales’s sentence. Frias-Gonzales has filed a pro se supplemental brief, also challenging his sentence and additionally challenging the validity of his guilty plea. Moreover, he has moved for appointment of a new attorney. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Frias-Gonzales, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences), and that Frias-Gonzales’s additional pro se arguments are unavailing, see United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007) (valid guilty plea is admission of guilt that waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses); United States v. VillarealAmarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006) (pro se claim that guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent was not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant did not attempt to withdraw guilty plea in district court). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Frias-Gonzales about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. We also deny Frias-Gonzales’s motion for appointment of a new attorney. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 14-2485 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015 Entry ID: 4232448

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?