United States v. R. Catalan-Castarena ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2978
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Ruben Catalan-Castarena, also known * District of Nebraska.
    as Raul Diarcos-Alonso,               *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 14, 2002
    Filed: February 27, 2002
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ruben Catalan-Castarena appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
    upon his guilty plea to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief stating Catalan-Castarena
    believes that his sentence of 108 months was unfair because it was not commensurate
    with his lack of a criminal history, and that he was materially prejudiced by the
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the District of Nebraska.
    ethical conflict of his prior counsel, who withdrew (citing a potential conflict of
    interest) before the change-of-plea hearing.
    As to the first point, we note that Catalan-Castarena was granted relief under
    the safety-valve provision from the 10-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence;
    that there was no motion for downward departure; and that the sentence imposed--
    without objection--was at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. The
    sentence is thus unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Woodrum, 
    959 F.2d 100
    , 101 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
    As to the second point, we note that Catalan-Castarena did not raise it at the
    withdrawal-of-counsel, plea, or sentencing hearings; and does not indicate how he
    was prejudiced by prior counsel’s representation.
    Having reviewed the record independently pursuantly to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
    Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2978

Judges: Loken, Arnold, Bye

Filed Date: 2/27/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024