United States v. Olvin Portillo-Martinez

329 F. App'x 697
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 30, 2009
Docket08-1169
StatusUnpublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 697 (United States v. Olvin Portillo-Martinez) 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. Olvin Portillo-Martinez, 329 F. App'x 697 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Olvin Portillo-Martinez appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry. His 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), questioning the reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Por-tillo at the top of the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). The record reflects that, in determining the sentence, the district court properly considered relevant factors. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within properly calculated Guidelines range); United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2006) (although sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumed reasonable, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence that district court failed to consider relevant factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of judgment in considering appropriate factors).

After reviewing the record independently 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 affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on the condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for cer-tiorari.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern 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)
Rita v. United States
551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Darrin Todd Haack
403 F.3d 997 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F. App'x 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-olvin-portillo-martinez-ca8-2009.