United States v. Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez

355 F. App'x 980
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 16, 2009
Docket08-2915
StatusUnpublished

This text of 355 F. App'x 980 (United States v. Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez, 355 F. App'x 980 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court 1 upon his guilty plea to illegally re-entering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), 6 U.S.C. § 202(3) & (4), and 6 U.S.C. § 557. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the district court failed to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and gave undue consideration to Vargas-Vasquez’s criminal history.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-diseretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). We find no procedural error in this case, see id. at 461 (describing procedural error), and we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Vargas-Vasquez’s criminal history and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2006).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Rita v. United States
551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
355 F. App'x 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adolfo-vargas-vasquez-ca8-2009.