United States v. Nilo Noriega-Millan

389 F. App'x 586
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 2010
Docket10-1623
StatusUnpublished

This text of 389 F. App'x 586 (United States v. Nilo Noriega-Millan) 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. Nilo Noriega-Millan, 389 F. App'x 586 (8th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nilo Noriega-Millan pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to 77 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, *587 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence and the court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Noriega-Millan has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that his counsel was ineffective and that the court did not adequately consider mitigating circumstances.

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion). We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for tire Eastern 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)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Darrin Todd Haack
403 F.3d 997 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 F. App'x 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nilo-noriega-millan-ca8-2010.