United States v. Christian Maldonado , 546 F. App'x 609 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-1298
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Christian Maldonado
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
    ____________
    Submitted: December 3, 2013
    Filed: December 9, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Christian Maldonado pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    , 846. The District Court1 sentenced him at the bottom of the
    Sentencing Guidelines range to 235 months in prison and 5 years of supervised
    release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the sentence was procedurally
    unsound and substantively unreasonable because the court did not specifically
    address, and did not properly weigh and consider, the sentencing factors in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    After careful review, we hold that the record shows that the court adequately
    considered the sentencing factors. The court considered and adopted the presentence
    report; heard sentencing arguments from Maldonado and the government regarding
    the nature and circumstances of the offense and Maldonado’s history and
    characteristics; considered Maldonado’s need for training and correctional treatment,
    recommended his participation in educational and vocational programs, and ordered
    him to complete substance-abuse treatment; and stated that it believed the sentence
    met the criteria that the court was obligated to consider. See United States v. Struzik,
    
    572 F.3d 484
    , 487 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that a district court need not mechanically
    recite the § 3553(a) factors provided that the record is clear that the court actually
    considered them). There were no significant procedural errors, and the bottom-of-
    the-Guidelines-range sentence was substantively reasonable. See id. (describing the
    standard for reviewing sentences and noting that a presumption of reasonableness
    may apply if a sentence is within the Guidelines range).
    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 the
    conviction and sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1298

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 609

Judges: Loken, Bowman, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024