United States v. Guadalupe Perez-Cano

23 F. App'x 642
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 2002
Docket01-2964
StatusUnpublished

This text of 23 F. App'x 642 (United States v. Guadalupe Perez-Cano) 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. Guadalupe Perez-Cano, 23 F. App'x 642 (8th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Guadalupe Perez-Cano pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation after conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has filed a brief arguing that the court erred when it denied Mr. PerezCano’s downward-departure motion.

Further, as the court “eleet[ed] not to depart in this case,” and Mr. Perez-Cano does not suggest the court acted with an unconstitutional motive, its discretionary decision not to depart is unreviewable. See United States v. Johnson, 169 F.3d 569, 573 (8th Cir.1999) (district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is reviewable only if court acted with unconstitutional motive or believed it lacked authority to depart); United States v. Field, 110 F.3d 587, 591-92 (8th Cir.1997) (district court’s conclusion “under the facts of this case” that downward departure was not warranted fairly indicated it recognized its authority to depart) (internal quotations omitted).

Following our independent review, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

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)
United States v. Scott Daniel Johnson
169 F.3d 569 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F. App'x 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guadalupe-perez-cano-ca8-2002.