United States v. Jose Carreon

451 F. App'x 606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 2011
Docket10-3723
StatusUnpublished

This text of 451 F. App'x 606 (United States v. Jose Carreon) 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. Jose Carreon, 451 F. App'x 606 (8th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under the terms of a written plea agreement, Jose Carreon pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(A), and § 846; and entering the United States unlawfully as an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). The district court 1 determined that Mr. Carreon was entitled to 18 U.S.C. § 3553® relief from the statutory minimum sentence for the drug offense, and imposed a sentence of 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable.

We see no indication that the district court erred in applying the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, considering the rele *607 vant sentencing factors, or explaining its sentence; and we conclude that the sentence, at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir.2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Carreon about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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. Hull
646 F.3d 583 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 F. App'x 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-carreon-ca8-2011.