United States v. Jose Carreon , 451 F. App'x 606 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      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    *       [UNPUBLISHED]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 court1 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.
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-3723

Citation Numbers: 451 F. App'x 606

Judges: Murphy, Arnold, Benton

Filed Date: 12/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024