United States v. Samaniego-Garcia, No. 13-3184 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable where the district court had wide latitude to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. The court also concluded that no error by trial counsel was apparent on the current record and there appeared to be no plain miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claim of ineffective assistance would not be considered on direct appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3184 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesus Samaniego-Garcia, also known as Bobby Alvarado lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: May 12, 2014 Filed: July 14, 2014 ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ RILEY, Chief Judge. Jesus Samaniego-Garcia appeals the 46-month sentence of imprisonment the district court1 imposed after Samaniego-Garcia pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. agreement, to distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). Samaniego-Garcia first proposes the sentence is substantively unreasonable, asserting the district court erred in weighing the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] sentencing factors, then questioning whether the district court even considered these factors actually alleging a procedural error.2 The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence, United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009), which we review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Here, the district court satisfied its procedural obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors, see id., and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the agreed upon U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not procedurally err, and Samaniego-Garcia has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Cromwell, 645 F.3d 1020, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) ( A within-range sentence is presumptively reasonable. ). Second, Samaniego-Garcia maintains his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by telling Samaniego-Garcia that if he pled guilty, he would receive a 24month sentence of imprisonment. Samaniego-Garcia s appellate counsel acknowledges, after reviewing the lower court record, he found no evidence supporting this claim. We decline to review this argument on direct appeal. We will consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record has been fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel s error is readily apparent. United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 2 The line between what is procedural and what is substance is famously fuzzy at the margins. United States v. Kane, 639 F.3d 1121, 1136 (8th Cir. 2011). But substantive review exists, in substantial part, to correct sentences that are based on unreasonable weighing decisions. Id. (quotation omitted). -2- 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). That is not the case here the record on this issue is not fully developed, no error by trial counsel is apparent on the current record, and no miscarriage of justice plainly appears. We affirm. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
