The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1002•United States v. Vibanco-Sanchez
00-1002Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitFeb 28, 2001
1The HONORABLE JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, United States District Judge for
the District of Nebraska.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-1002
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * District of Nebraska.
*
Benjamin Vibanco-Sanchez, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: February 21, 2001
Filed: February 28, 2001
___________
Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin Vibanco-Sanchez pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and to criminal forfeiture. The district
court1 sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On
appeal, Vibanco-Sanchez’s counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising only the issue whether the district court erred in granting
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Vibanco-Sanchez a 2-level rather than 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
Vibanco-Sanchez has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Vibanco-Sanchez stipulated at sentencing to a total offense level of 34, see
United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); and in any event, the
district court did not clearly err in denying the additional 1-level reduction, see United
States v. Holt, 149 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review), despite the
government’s plea-agreement stipulation indicating that Vibanco-Sanchez had timely
notified authorities of his intent to plead guilty, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(b), 6B1.4(d),
p.s.; United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182, 187 (8th Cir. 1989) (plea-agreement
stipulation that defendant timely accepted responsibility does not bind sentencing
court).
Having found no non-frivolous issues upon our review of the record, see Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we now affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.