United States v. Jose Farias-Valdovinos, No. 18-3481 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable is barred by the appeal waiver in the case; with respect to his argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, that issue is not barred, but the district court did not plainly err in determining there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea and in accepting it.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3481 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff Appellee v. Jose Farias-Valdovinos Defendant Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 3, 2020 Filed: May 18, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Farias-Valdovinos appeals from his sentence after pleading guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After varying downward, the district court1 sentenced him 120 months imprisonment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm and dismiss in part the appeal. On appeal, Farias-Valdovinos’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Farias-Valdovinos’s sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement should not be enforced. After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we ordered supplemental briefing on whether sufficient evidence supported Farias-Valdovinos’s guilty plea and whether that claim survives his appeal waiver. After considering the parties’ supplemental filings, we conclude that Farias-Valdovinos’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable is barred by the appeal waiver and must be dismissed. However, we find that the appeal waiver does not prevent us from considering his argument that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because there was an insufficient factual basis underlying the plea. See United States v. Haubrich, 744 F.3d 554, 558 (8th Cir. 2014). Because Farias-Valdovinos failed to challenge the factual basis underlying the plea before the district court, we review this issue for plain error. See United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2010). Following careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in finding that there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea and in accepting Farias-Valdovinos’s guilty plea. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and dismiss in part the appeal. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
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.
