United States of America v. Juan Pedro Alapisco-Ochoa

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1947
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Pedro Alapisco-Ochoa
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: December 3, 2024
Filed: December 6, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Alapisco-Ochoa appeals after he pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge
pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district

-- 1 of 2 --

court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court should have permitted Alapisco-Ochoa to
withdraw his plea and granted his request for an interpreter.
Upon careful review, we conclude any issues on appeal pertaining to the
voluntariness of Alapisco-Ochoa’s guilty plea fall outside the scope of the appeal
waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo
review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). We further conclude that the
record establishes the plea was voluntary, such that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to permit Alapisco-Ochoa to withdraw his plea, see United
States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); United States
v. Berrier, 110 F.4th 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2024) (allegations contradicting
defendant’s statements at plea hearing are inherently unreliable); or in denying his
request for an interpreter, see United States v. Nguyen, 526 F.3d 1129, 1134–35 (8th
Cir. 2008) (granting trial court wide discretion to consider indices of English
proficiency to determine whether defendant is entitled to interpreter).
We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --