United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mynor Rene Rosales, Defendant-appellant, 33 F.3d 60 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: POOLE and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges; TANNER,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM**
Rosales appeals from the imposition of a 180 month sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty to violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (d) (1). He challenges the district court's inclusion of a 1982 conviction for manslaughter and a 1990 conviction for sale of a controlled substance. He argues that these two prior convictions were based on unconstitutionally obtained guilty pleas, and thus should have been excluded from computation of his criminal history category. We disagree.
In United States v. Fondren, No. 93-50470, slip op. ---- (9th Cir. August 12, 1994), we held that pursuant to Custis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1732 (1994) a defendant has no right in his federal sentencing proceeding to challenge the constitutionality of prior convictions used to enhance his federal sentence, unless those convictions were obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Rosales does not argue that he was not represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty in 1982 and 1990. Rosales' arguments are foreclosed by Fondren.
AFFIRMED.
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.