Mayra Dominguez-Cortez v. Michael B. Mukasey

1The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3049
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Southern
* District of Iowa.
Rigoberto Olvera-Morales, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: October 21, 2009
Filed: October 26, 2009
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Rigoberto Olvera-Morales challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed
after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or
substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846; and distributing at least 50 grams of a mixture or
substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(B)(viii). His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). We affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Reviewing the sentence for abuse of discretion, we must first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error—such as misapplying the
United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, or basing the sentence on clearly erroneous facts—and then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We conclude the district court
committed no procedural error. We further conclude the court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Sicaros-
Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according a presumption of
reasonableness to a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range); United States v.
Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2007) (listing circumstances where a
sentencing court abuses its discretion, resulting in an unreasonable sentence).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --