United States v. Alejandro Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 13, 2020
• Docket: 19-3135
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-3135 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alejandro Jesus Rodriguez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________

Submitted: May 8, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Rodriguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and received a within- Guidelines-range sentence of 235 months in prison. In an Anders brief, Rodriguez’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro se brief, Rodriguez argues that his sentence is unfair, primarily because another unnamed offender received a lower sentence than he did.

We conclude that Rodriguez’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within- Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Rodriguez’s pro se arguments also have no merit. He has not established a sentencing disparity, see United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (requiring the defendant to show a comparator with a similar record who engaged in similar conduct), and to the extent he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, we will not consider this issue now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-assistance-of-plea-counsel claims “are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988), and conclude that there are no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-