Opinion
No. 16-1703
10-27-2016
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesus Valenzuela Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville [Unpublished] Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Jesus Valenzuela directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, and the district court sentenced him to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of a Guidelines enhancement for possessing firearms. Valenzuela has filed a pro se brief, challenging the same enhancement and the drug quantity used for sentencing purposes, and arguing that the district court should have sua sponte held a suppression hearing and suppressed evidence.
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. --------
We conclude that the application of the firearm enhancement was not plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (errors not properly preserved are reviewed only for plain error); see also United States v. Garcia, 772 F.3d 1124, 1125 (8th Cir. 2014) (for firearm enhancement, government need only prove temporal and spatial nexus among weapon, defendant, and drug-trafficking activity; such nexus exists when weapon was found in same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia were located). We also conclude that Valenzuela's challenge to the drug quantity used at sentencing is contradicted by his own testimony at the change-of-plea hearing. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant's representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). We further conclude that Valenzuela's suppression arguments assert non-jurisdictional defects or errors that were waived by his valid guilty plea. See United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (by entering valid guilty plea, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional defects or errors).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.