United States v. A. Lavariega-Diego , 83 F. App'x 144 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-2807
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the Northern
    * District of Iowa.
    Aurelio Lavariega-Diego, also known *
    as Aurelio Lavariega,                 *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 5, 2003
    Filed: December 12, 2003
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Aurelio Lavariega-Diego challenges the sentence the District Court1 imposed
    upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after deportation
    following a conviction for aggravated domestic-abuse assault, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
    1
    The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa.
    § 1326(a)–(b) (2003). On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw
    under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    On appeal, counsel argues that the sentence imposed was too harsh, because
    Lavariego-Diego’s domestic-abuse history—which was the reason the District Court
    gave for sentencing him at the top of the applicable Guidelines range—was fully
    accounted for in his criminal history score and in the 16-level increase to his base
    offense level. This argument fails. Lavariega-Diego’s sentence falls within 8 U.S.C.
    § 1326(b)’s 20-year maximum, it is within the appropriate Guidelines range, and we
    will not review the sentence merely because it is at the top of the range. See United
    States v. Smotherman, 
    326 F.3d 988
    , 989 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 
    124 S. Ct. 293
    (2003) (sentence at top of correct range does not create constitutional
    infirmity allowing appellate review).
    Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently
    under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), we affirm. We also grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2807

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 144

Judges: Bye, Bowman, Melloy

Filed Date: 12/12/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024