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)
03-1037•United States of America v. Jose Luis Reyes-Contreras
03-1037Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitNov 28, 2003
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 03-1389
________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Jose Luis Reyes-Contreras,
Appellant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
[PUBLISHED]
________________
Submitted: October 23, 2003
Filed: November 7, 2003
________________
Before BYE, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
________________
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jose Luis Reyes-Contreras pleaded guilty
to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams
of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
He acknowledged that by pleading guilty, he was subjecting himself to a statutory
minimum penalty of ten years in prison and five years of supervised release.
-- 1 of 2 --
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
2
At sentencing, the district court 1 imposed the statutory minimum sentence: a
ten-year prison term and a five-year term of supervised release. Reyes-Contreras
subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, have new counsel appointed, and
have a new sentencing hearing conducted. The district court denied his motion.
Reyes-Contreras appeals.
Reyes-Contreras cannot challenge his conviction or sentence on appeal
because he received precisely what he bargained for in the plea agreement. See
United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). The district court
properly denied Reyes-Contreras's motion to withdraw his plea because it was filed
after sentence was imposed. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.