United States v. J. Sandoval-Velasco , 209 F. App'x 613 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-3774
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Northern District of Iowa.
    Jose Sandoval-Velasco,                  *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2006
    Filed: December 20, 2006
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After Jose Sandoval-Velasco was sentenced to 30 months in prison and 3 years
    of supervised release for immigration offenses, he violated his supervised release by
    again illegally reentering the United States after deportation. The district court1
    revoked supervised release and imposed a new sentence of 24 months in prison, to run
    consecutively to the 37-month sentence imposed for the new illegal-reentry
    conviction. Sandoval-Velasco appeals his revocation sentence, and we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Iowa.
    Since the revocation sentence was within the advisory guideline
    recommendations and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing it,
    see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), we conclude that Sandoval-Velasco’s sentence
    is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2005)
    (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance
    with United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005)); United States v. Franklin, 
    397 F.3d 604
    , 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (24-month revocation sentence, where Guidelines
    recommended 8-14 months, was not abuse of discretion where transcript showed court
    was aware of defendant’s multiple violations of supervised-release conditions and of
    Guidelines range and statutory maximum).
    We also deny Sandoval-Velasco’s pro se motion in which he raises matters that
    are not properly before us at this time, including his request for briefing on how
    Booker might impact his 37-month prison sentence on the new illegal-reentry offense.
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3774

Citation Numbers: 209 F. App'x 613

Judges: Murphy, Bye, Melloy

Filed Date: 12/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024