United States v. Jose Rivera-Navas

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1346
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jose Ricardo Rivera-Navas
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 2, 2014
Filed: October 10, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jose Ricardo Rivera-Navas appeals from the judgment of the District Court1
entered upon a jury verdict finding Rivera guilty of conspiring to distribute more than
1
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(viii), 846. The District Court imposed a sentence of 260 months in prison,
5 years of supervised release, and a $40,000 fine. In a brief filed under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rivera’s counsel challenges the reasonableness of
the sentence.
The record shows that the District Court considered the relevant sentencing
factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), after overruling Rivera’s objections to the
presentence report’s calculations, and we conclude that Rivera’s within-Guidelines-
range sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Wanna, 744 F.3d 584, 589
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 13-10495, 2014 WL 2616197 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014). We
have found no non-frivolous issues for review, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), and we affirm.
As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to
withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994
Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We
therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to
counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v.
Eredia, No. 13-3538, slip op. at 2–3 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014) (Colloton, J., concurring
in part and dissenting in part).
______________________________
-2-