The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-1696•United States v. Gustavo Villa-Maldonado
11-1696Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitDec 30, 2011
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3723
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Jose Carreon, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 14, 2011
Filed: December 20, 2011
___________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Under the terms of a written plea agreement, Jose Carreon pleaded guilty to
conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A), and
§ 846; and entering the United States unlawfully as an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1325(a). The district court 1 determined that Mr. Carreon was entitled to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f) relief from the statutory minimum sentence for the drug offense, and
imposed a sentence of 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. His
1
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable.
We see no indication that the district court erred in applying the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines, considering the relevant sentencing factors, or explaining its
sentence; and we conclude that the sentence, at the bottom of the undisputed
Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588
(8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard;
according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines
range); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(describing procedural error). Having reviewed the record independently under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
subject to counsel informing Mr. Carreon about procedures for seeking rehearing or
filing a petition for certiorari.
______________________________
- 2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.