United States v. Jesus Valenzuela

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4389388-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. John E Baureis. [4463409] [16-1703]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1703
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesus Valenzuela
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 24, 2016
Filed: October 27, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesus Valenzuela directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, and
the district court1 sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. His
1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 16-1703

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463409

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of a Guidelines
enhancement for possessing firearms. Valenzuela has filed a pro se brief, challenging
the same enhancement and the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes, and
arguing that the district court should have sua sponte held a suppression hearing and
suppressed evidence.
We conclude that the application of the firearm enhancement was not plain
error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors
not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error); see also United States v.
Garcia, 772 F.3d 1124, 1125 (8th Cir. 2014) (for firearm enhancement, government
need only prove temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and
drug-trafficking activity; such nexus exists when weapon was found in same location
where drugs or drug paraphernalia were located). We also conclude that Valenzuela’s
challenge to the drug quantity used at sentencing is contradicted by his own testimony
at the change-of-plea hearing. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th
Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption
of verity). We further conclude that Valenzuela’s suppression arguments assert
non-jurisdictional defects or errors that were waived by his valid guilty plea. See
United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty
plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1703

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463409