United States of America v. Jose Domingo Garcia

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-1907
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jose Domingo Garcia
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: October 4, 2012
Filed: October 11, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Jose Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute more
than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, the district

-- 1 of 2 --

court sentenced him to 135 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On1
appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mr. Garcia. We
find nothing in the record indicating that the court committed any procedural error,
and Mr. Garcia’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Although the sentence is
more severe than those received by Mr. Garcia’s co-defendants, the district court
considered the reasons for the lower sentences imposed on the co-defendants, and
articulated a detailed and reasonable basis for its choice of sentence in Mr. Garcia’s
case--a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. The court expressed
concern over, among other things, the severity of the offense and the need to provide
an adequate deterrent effect. See id. at 461 (court abuses discretion when it fails to
consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factor, or
considers appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors;
if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of
reasonableness).
Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for review. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --