United States v. Javier Arredondo ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1393
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Javier Contreras Arredondo, also known as Javier Contreeas Arredondo
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
    ____________
    Submitted: October 27, 2020
    Filed: October 30, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Javier Contreras Arredondo appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense.
    His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Arredondo has also submitted a pro se brief.
    Arredondo challenges the district court’s1 denial of a mitigating-role reduction,
    and the imposition an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) (applying 2-level
    enhancement if the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine the
    defendant knew was imported unlawfully). After careful review, we find no clear
    error. See United States v. Hunt, 
    840 F.3d 554
    , 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of
    review; stating that a mitigating-role reduction applies to a participant substantially
    less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity, but does not
    provide an “affirmative right” to a reduction for all actors but the criminal
    mastermind); United States v. Rivera-Mendoza, 
    682 F.3d 730
    , 733-34 (8th Cir. 2012)
    (standard of review; affirming the imposition of an importation enhancement where
    the defendant made calls to Mexican methamphetamine sources and sent drug
    proceeds to Mexico). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in sentencing Arredondo, as the record indicates that the district court
    properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
    Salazar-Aleman, 
    741 F.3d 878
    , 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that under a substantive
    reasonableness review, the district court abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider
    a relevant factor,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,” or
    “commits a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors).
    As to Arredondo’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude that he has not
    established an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Carr, 
    895 F.3d 1083
    , 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that a sentencing-disparity argument requires the
    defendant to show there are comparators with a similar record who engaged in similar
    conduct). We defer any ineffective-assistance claims for collateral proceedings. See
    United States v. McAdory, 
    501 F.3d 868
    , 872 (8th Cir. 2007). Further, having
    independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82-83 (1988),
    1
    The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion,
    and affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1393

Filed Date: 10/30/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2020