United States v. Ronald Hernandez-Zetino

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ronald Hernandez-Zetino

469 F. App'x 497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 2012

Docket11-3268

StatusUnpublished

This text of 469 F. App'x 497 (United States v. Ronald Hernandez-Zetino) 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. Ronald Hernandez-Zetino, 469 F. App'x 497 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Ronald Hernandez-Zetino appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). 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), arguing that the court committed procedural error in sentencing Mr. Hernandez-Zetino, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the court committed no significant procedural error, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence; procedural error includes improperly calculating Guidelines range, treating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain chosen sentence), and we find nothing indicating that the sentence — which is at the bottom of the Guidelines range — is substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness on appeal; to rebut presumption, defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors).

*498 Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Hernandez-Zetino about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari; and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Ronald Hernandez-Zetino appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation following conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). 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), arguing that the court committed procedural error in sentencing Mr. Hernandez-Zetino, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the court committed no significant procedural error, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence; procedural error includes improperly calculating Guidelines range, treating Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain chosen sentence), and we find nothing indicating that the sentence — which is at the bottom of the Guidelines range — is substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness on appeal; to rebut presumption, defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors).

*498 Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Hernandez-Zetino about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari; and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F. App'x 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-hernandez-zetino-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack