United States v. R Sandoval-Cerrantes

Eighth Circuit

United States v. R Sandoval-Cerrantes

212 F. App'x 584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 2007

Docket06-1430

StatusUnpublished

This text of 212 F. App'x 584 (United States v. R Sandoval-Cerrantes) 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. R Sandoval-Cerrantes, 212 F. App'x 584 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes (Cerrantes) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he argues that Cerrantes’s sentence—at the top of the advisory Guidelines range—is unreasonable. In a pro se motion, Cerrantes moves for appointment of new counsel.

We cannot say that Cerrantes’s sentence was unreasonable. The court specifically declined to impose a more lenient sentence because of Cerrantes’s history and characteristics, namely, his troubling criminal history; and counsel has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within the advisory Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (sentencing factors); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.2005) (relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to conclude that they support finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears *586 burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005).

In his pro se motion Cerrantes appears to raise claims of an involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, neither of which is properly before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998). Further, having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly we affrim the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Cerrantes’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, 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

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes (Cerrantes) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he argues that Cerrantes’s sentence—at the top of the advisory Guidelines range—is unreasonable. In a pro se motion, Cerrantes moves for appointment of new counsel.

We cannot say that Cerrantes’s sentence was unreasonable. The court specifically declined to impose a more lenient sentence because of Cerrantes’s history and characteristics, namely, his troubling criminal history; and counsel has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within the advisory Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (sentencing factors); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.2005) (relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to conclude that they support finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears *586 burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005).

In his pro se motion Cerrantes appears to raise claims of an involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, neither of which is properly before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998). Further, having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly we affrim the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Cerrantes’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F. App'x 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-r-sandoval-cerrantes-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack