Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Edgar Sanchez appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Sanchez claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue he was entitled to sentencing reductions. The district court denied the petition, finding that Sanchez did not qualify for "safety valve" relief or a sentencing guideline reduction. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that Sanchez did not provide substantial assistance and could not benefit from the retroactive sentencing guideline. It granted his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views6 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Edgar Sanchez appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Sanchez claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue he was entitled to sentencing reductions. The district court denied the petition, finding that Sanchez did not qualify for "safety valve" relief or a sentencing guideline reduction. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that Sanchez did not provide substantial assistance and could not benefit from the retroactive sentencing guideline. It granted his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-02-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-3145

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which Edgar Sanchez appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Sanchez claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue he was entitled to sentencing reductions. The district court denied the petition, finding that Sanchez did not qualify for "safety valve" relief or a sentencing guideline reduction. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that Sanchez did not provide substantial assistance and could not benefit from the retroactive sentencing guideline. It granted his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views6 pages

    United States v. Sanchez, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Edgar Sanchez appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Sanchez claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue he was entitled to sentencing reductions. The district court denied the petition, finding that Sanchez did not qualify for "safety valve" relief or a sentencing guideline reduction. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that Sanchez did not provide substantial assistance and could not benefit from the retroactive sentencing guideline. It granted his counsel's motion to withdraw from the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    FEB 5 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    EDGAR ARTEMIO SANCHEZ,

    No. 97-3145
    (Dist. of Kansas)
    (D.C. No. 96-3055-SAC)

    Defendant-Appellant.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *


    Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    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 cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    Edgar A. Sanchez appeals the district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    petition. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253 and
    2255 and affirms. 1
    Sanchez was arrested by the Kansas Highway patrol on May 5, 1994;
    approximately 106 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride were found in his
    possession. A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment against
    Sanchez, charging him with possession with intent to distribute approximately
    100 kilograms of cocaine.
    On October 21, 1994, Sanchez pled guilty to the indictment pursuant to a
    plea agreement. In return for Sanchezs plea, the United States agreed that it
    would not oppose a three-level reduction in Sanchezs base offense level for
    acceptance of responsibility, take no position on an obstruction of justice
    enhancement, and not oppose a three-level reduction in Sanchezs base offense

    Because Sanchez filed his 2255 petition prior to the enactment of the
    Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132,
    110 Stat. 1214, the AEDPA and its certificate of appealability requirements do
    not apply to this appeal. See United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2
    (10th Cir. 1997). Because petitioners like Sanchez were not obligated to obtain a
    certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of a 2255 motion under preAEDPA law, this court proceeds to the merits of Sanchezs appeal. See United
    States v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that under the
    pre-AEDPA versions of 28 U.S.C. 2253, 2255, a 2255 movant was not
    required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal an adverse decision by
    the district court), overruled in part on other grounds, Kunzman, 125 F.3d at
    1364 n.2.
    1

    -2-

    level for his minor role in the conspiracy. The United States further agreed to
    consider filing a motion for a downward departure based on any substantial
    assistance provided by Sanchez.
    Sanchez met with representatives of the Drug Enforcement Administration
    and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation on December 13, 1994. The meeting was
    also attended by a representative of the Public Defenders Office. During the
    meeting Sanchez refused to provide specific information concerning the
    individuals who recruited him and provided the cocaine. He also refused to
    provide specific information concerning how, where, and when the cocaine was to
    be delivered and with whom contact would be made upon delivery. The interview
    concluded without Sanchez providing any useful information.
    Sanchez was sentenced on March 16, 1995. His base offense level of 36
    was reduced by three points for his minor role in the offense and three points for
    acceptance of responsibility. The sentencing range for this base offense level of
    30 was 97 to 121 months. The district court sentenced Sanchez to the mandatory
    minimum of 120 months as required by 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)
    On January 29, 1996, Sanchez filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
    his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. In the motion, Sanchez argued that his
    counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to argue that Sanchez
    was entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to the safety valve provisions of
    -3-

    18 U.S.C. 3553(f). He further argued that he was entitled to a two level


    reduction in his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(4). Based on
    Sanchezs motion and an affidavit filed by Sanchez in support of his claims, the
    district court appointed James Chappas to represent Sanchez and held an
    evidentiary hearing.
    Shortly after the hearing had concluded, the district court issued a
    Memorandum and Order denying Sanchezs 2255 motion. The district court
    concluded that Sanchezs trial counsel was not ineffective because Sanchez was
    not entitled to a sentence reduction under the safety valve provisions of 3553(f).
    The district court found that because Sanchez failed to inform the United States
    all that he knew about the offense of conviction and the relevant conduct,
    including the identities and participation of others, he failed to qualify for safety
    valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(5); United States v. Acosta-Olivas, 71 F.3d
    375, 377-78 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Sanchezs counsel was not
    ineffective for failing to request relief under 3553(f).
    As to Sanchezs claim that he was entitled to a two-level reduction in his
    base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(4), the district court noted that
    Sanchez was sentenced well before the effective date of that provision and the
    provision was not listed by the United States Sentencing Commission as one that
    applied retroactively. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a), (c). Accordingly, the district
    -4-

    court concluded that Sanchez could not benefit from U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(4)
    unless Sanchezs original sentence was set aside and Sanchez was resentenced.
    Because the district court had already concluded that Sanchezs counsel was not
    ineffective and Sanchezs original sentence would stand, Sanchez could not
    benefit from 2D1.1(b)(4).
    When Sanchez insisted on appealing the district courts denial of his 2255
    motion, Sanchezs appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel indicated that he was obliged to
    characterize this appeal as frivolous. Under the facts, circumstances and
    applicable law, all as aforementioned and found by the district court, counsel for
    the appellant is with no conceivable, good faith, argument to indicate that the
    district court incorrectly applied the law to the facts in this case. Appellants
    Brief at 5.
    This court has reviewed de novo the Anders brief filed by Sanchezs
    counsel, the United States response thereto, the district courts Memorandum and
    Order, and the entire record on appeal. Based on that review, we affirm for
    substantially the reasons set forth in the district courts thorough Memorandum
    and Order.

    -5-

    The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
    is hereby AFFIRMED. Counsels motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders is
    GRANTED.

    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge

    -6-

    You might also like