United States v. Baldemar Arambul

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2019
• Docket: 18-2147
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2147 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Baldemar Arambul

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________

Submitted: March 21, 2019 Filed: April 1, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Baldemar Arambul directly appeals after a jury convicted him of drug and money laundering offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term

1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Counsel also requests leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011) (court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining sentence). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw,2 and we affirm. ______________________________

2 We remind counsel, however, that Anders briefing must be done as an advocate for the appellant, and the brief must refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80 (Anders brief must refer to anything in record that might arguably support appeal); Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (Anders briefing must be done as advocate).

-2-