United States v. Guzman

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Guzman

527 F. App'x 582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1956

StatusPublished

This text of 527 F. App'x 582 (United States v. Guzman) 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. Guzman, 527 F. App'x 582 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Raul Guzman appeals the ten-month prison sentence that the District Court¹ imposed upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after having been previously deported following a felony conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). Guzman’s 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 that Guzman’s sentence was unreasonable and that he should have been sentenced to time served. We conclude that the sentence— which is at the bottom of the uncontested Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

Raul Guzman appeals the ten-month prison sentence that the District Court¹ imposed upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after having been previously deported following a felony conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). Guzman’s 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 that Guzman’s sentence was unreasonable and that he should have been sentenced to time served. We conclude that the sentence— which is at the bottom of the uncontested Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). Further, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 F. App'x 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guzman-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack