United States v. Guerrero-Villasenor

14 F. App'x 718
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 2001
Docket00-3224
StatusUnpublished

This text of 14 F. App'x 718 (United States v. Guerrero-Villasenor) 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. Guerrero-Villasenor, 14 F. App'x 718 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Miguel Guerrero-Villasenor pleaded guilty to re-entering the United States illegally after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court 1 sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. By that time, Guerrero-Villasenor had already begun serving a 55-year Iowa state sentence for unrelated convictions. To be sure that Guerrero-Villasenor would serve a total sentence of at least 10 years, the court made the federal sentence commence when he was paroled, or upon a fixed date, whichever occurred first.

In a brief submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel challenges the structure of this sentence. We find no abuse of discretion, see United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512-13 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1018, 117 S.Ct. 533, 136 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996), because this sentence structure is expressly authorized, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n.4). In a pro se supplemental filing, Guerrero-Villasenor challenges the district court’s authority to consider his state parole date in fashioning his federal *719 sentence. This argument also lacks merit. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n.3).

We have located no non-frivolous issues for appeal after reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny GuerreroVillasenor’s request for substitute counsel.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

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. Lorenzo J. Cotroneo
89 F.3d 510 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Polak-Rudich v. United States
519 U.S. 1018 (Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F. App'x 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guerrero-villasenor-ca8-2001.