United States v. David Franco-Tinajero , 450 F. App'x 551 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2712
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    David Franco-Tinajero,                  *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 22, 2011
    Filed: December 29, 2011
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    David Franco-Tinajero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
    in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 846
    , 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced
    him to 120 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Franco-
    Tinajero’s counsel moves to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
    unreasonable.
    1
    The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Based on his plea-agreement stipulations, Franco-Tinajero received the
    statutory mandatory minimum sentence applicable to his offense. Accordingly, we
    reject his argument that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States
    v. Gregg, 
    451 F.3d 930
    , 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), does not relate to statutorily imposed sentences); United States v. Chacon,
    
    330 F.3d 1065
    , 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for court to depart from statutory
    minimum sentence is in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (e) and (f), which apply only when
    government moves for downward departure based on substantial assistance or
    defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief). 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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2712

Citation Numbers: 450 F. App'x 551

Judges: Wollman, Smith, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/29/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024