United States v. Elmer Hernandez-Figueroa ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-3271
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Northern District of Iowa.
    Elmer Hernandez-Figueroa,               *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 1, 2011
    Filed: February 8, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Elmer Hernandez-Figueroa pleaded guilty to being found in the United States
    after having been removed subsequent to attaining felony convictions, in violation of
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 57 months in prison
    (the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range), and he appeals. His counsel has
    moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967),
    arguing that the sentence was unreasonable and that the court should have varied
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Iowa.
    downward. Hernandez-Figueroa has filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that
    his family circumstances warranted a lower sentence.
    We conclude that the district court took into account all the relevant sentencing
    factors, committed no procedural error, and imposed a substantively reasonable
    sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007) (in reviewing sentence,
    appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural
    error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under
    abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1004 (8th Cir.
    2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
    Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we find
    no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we
    affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-3271

Filed Date: 2/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021