Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0697-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Olvin PORTILLO-MARTINEZ, Appellant.
    No. 08-1169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 7, 2009.
    Filed: July 30, 2009.
    Sean R. Berry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.
    Joanne M. Lilledahl, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.
    Olvin Portillo-Martinez, Ray Brook, NY, pro se.
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Olvin Portillo-Martinez appeals the sentence the district court 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. 
      
      . The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.