DocketNumber: 06-1956
Judges: Magill, Melloy, Per Curiam, Riley
Filed Date: 6/13/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1956 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Marco Antonio Castillo-Ramirez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: June 7, 2007 Filed: June 13, 2007 ___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Marco Castillo-Ramirez appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1 imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 841
(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. Castillo-Ramirez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence, which was at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. In determining the sentence, the district court considered Castillo-Ramirez’s Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other18 U.S.C. § 3553
(a) factors. See United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220
, 261 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Haack,403 F.3d 997
, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,488 U.S. 75
, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-