United States v. Rogelio Vera-Navarro

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Rogelio Vera-Navarro

65 F. App'x 587

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 2003

Docket03-1090

StatusUnpublished

This text of 65 F. App'x 587 (United States v. Rogelio Vera-Navarro) 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. Rogelio Vera-Navarro, 65 F. App'x 587 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rogelio Vera-Navarro pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court 1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Vera-Navarro’s 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), arguing that the district court should have granted a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11, p.s. (lesser harms) and § 5K2.12, p.s. (coercion and duress). Mr. Vera-Navarro asserts, pro se, that he was never comfortable with his attorney and felt as if he was “railroaded from the start,” and urges us to reduce his sentence.

Given the district court’s explicit recognition of its authority to depart, its decision not to depart is unreviewable. See United States v. Orozco-Rodriguez, 220 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.2000). Further, any ineffective-assistance argument that Mr. Vera-Navarro may be trying to raise is not properly before us. See United States v. Martin, 59.F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995).

Following careful review of the record, see 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, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rogelio Vera-Navarro pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court 1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Vera-Navarro’s 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), arguing that the district court should have granted a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11, p.s. (lesser harms) and § 5K2.12, p.s. (coercion and duress). Mr. Vera-Navarro asserts, pro se, that he was never comfortable with his attorney and felt as if he was “railroaded from the start,” and urges us to reduce his sentence.

Given the district court’s explicit recognition of its authority to depart, its decision not to depart is unreviewable. See United States v. Orozco-Rodriguez, 220 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.2000). Further, any ineffective-assistance argument that Mr. Vera-Navarro may be trying to raise is not properly before us. See United States v. Martin, 59.F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995).

Following careful review of the record, see 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, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. App'x 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rogelio-vera-navarro-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack