Case ID: f-appx_499/html/0623-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Da Van CAO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-2638.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 26, 2013.
    Filed: Feb. 27, 2013.
    Bruce Gillan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Da Van Cao Lincoln, NE, pro se.
    Carlos A. Monzon LINCOLN, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Da Van Cao appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vii), and 846, and the district court — upon determining that Mr. Cao was ineligible for safety-valve relief-imposed the applicable statutory minimum prison term of 120 months. 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 Mr. Cao’s prison term is excessive.

Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Cao was ineligible for safety-valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (limitation on applicability of statutory mínimums in certain cases; setting forth five-part standard for safety-valve relief); United States v. Guerra-Cabrera, 477 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir.2007) (concluding that, because record supported district court’s findings that defendants had failed truthfully to provide all information they had about their offenses, district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that they were ineligible for safety-valve relief). We further conclude that Mr. Cao’s 120-month prison term is proper, and not excessive. See United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (noting district courts’ lack of authority to impose sentences below congressionally mandated statutory minimums). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Cao about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.