Filed: Dec. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1864 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Sonni Natasha Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 7, 2005 Filed: December 12, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Sonni Natasha Hernandez appeals the 120-month sentence the district court* imposed after Hernandez pleaded guilty to a drug-
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1864 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Sonni Natasha Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 7, 2005 Filed: December 12, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Sonni Natasha Hernandez appeals the 120-month sentence the district court* imposed after Hernandez pleaded guilty to a drug-c..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1864
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Southern
v. * District of Iowa.
*
Sonni Natasha Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 7, 2005
Filed: December 12, 2005
___________
Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Sonni Natasha Hernandez appeals the 120-month sentence the district court*
imposed after Hernandez pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge. Hernandez
argues the government acted in bad faith by not filing a motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e) for a departure below the mandatory minimum sentence. We conclude
Hernandez failed to make a substantial threshold showing that the government’s
refusal was “irrational, in bad faith, or based on an unconstitutional motive.” See
*
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
United States v. Davis,
397 F.3d 672, 676 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wade v. United
States,
504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992)). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-