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)
11-3189•United States of America v. Selvin Garcia-Garcia, also known as Jose Villarreal
11-3189Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitNov 29, 2013
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1829
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Selvin Garcia-Garcia, also known as Jose Villarreal
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: November 13, 2013
Filed: November 18, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Selvin Garcia-Garcia pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture and
possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine
-- 1 of 2 --
on premises where a child was present or resided. The District Court 1 imposed a
sentence of 135 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal,
Garcia-Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that Garcia-Garcia’s guilty plea was involuntary because Garcia-
Garcia mistakenly believed that he was eligible for safety-valve relief. Counsel
suggests that the interpreter who helped counsel and Garcia-Garcia discuss the plea
agreement may not have properly communicated its contents to Garcia-Garcia, who
speaks only Spanish. Garcia-Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Garcia-Garcia did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea in the District
Court. His claim is therefore not cognizable in this direct appeal. See United States
v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that a claim that defendant’s
guilty plea was involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal unless first presented
to the district court).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.