Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0632-01.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. Jose Guadalupe SERRANO-SANCHEZ, also known as Carlos Alvarez, also known as Pedro Guerro, also known as Antonio Villaescusa-Ibarra, also known as Arturo Orosco, also known as Jose Sorrano Sanchez, also known as Carlos Savala Alvarez, also known as Jose Guadalupe Sanchez, Appellant.
    No. 00-1629NE.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 21, 2001.
    Filed: April 2, 2001.
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Serrano-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The presentence report (PSR) recommended a Guidelines imprisonment range of 77-96 months. The District Court sentenced defendant to 8 years (96 months) imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In his Anders brief, counsel argues that defendant’s sentence is too severe for his offense, because of his limited education and the fact that he has never before been convicted for illegal reentry. Counsel conceded that Serrano-Sanchez did not object to the Sentencing Guidelines range established by the PSR, and that he did not file a downward-departure motion.

We conclude Serrano-Sanchez’s argument is unreviewable. See United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (dismissing defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction when he argued his sentence was excessive because it was imposed at top of Guidelines range; sentence is not reviewable merely because it is at top of properly calculated Guidelines range); United States v. Hutchinson, 926 F.2d 746, 747 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (defendant’s request to be sentenced at low end of Guidelines range is unreviewable).

After conducting the required review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable William G. Cambridge, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, now retired.