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)
10-3600•Terry Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs
10-3600Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2012
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-2428
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Ulises Israel Cuadros Navarrete, also *
known as Ulises Cuadros Navarrete, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: March 22, 2012
Filed: April 3, 2012
___________
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Ulises Israel Cuadros Navarrete pled guilty to aiding and abetting the
distribution of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 72 months in prison and1
5 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel moves to withdraw, and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of1
Minnesota.
-- 1 of 2 --
Having carefully reviewed the record before us, we reject counsel’s argument
that the sentence is unreasonable: the district court committed no significant
procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States
v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences,
appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then
considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard,
taking into account totality of circumstances; if sentence is within Guidelines range,
appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness). Further, having reviewed
the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.