[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15218 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 23, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-60042-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 23, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Sanchez appeals from his 135-month sentence, imposed at the low end
of the guideline range after he pleaded guilty to attempting to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 1 kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He presents two issues:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Sanchez’s
motion to continue sentencing to allow him to pursue potential
exculpatory material covered by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83
S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405
U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed. 104 (1972).
2. Whether Sanchez’s guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary because it was entered into without knowledge of potential
Brady and Giglio material.
A review of the record shows that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to continue sentencing (filed to investigate
potential, but speculative, exculpatory Brady and Giglio material): Sanchez had
admitted to the facts underlying the offense, including the essential elements,
when he pleaded guilty. We see no specific substantial prejudice. The record also
shows that Sanchez’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The
plea complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
2