Case ID: f-appx_251/html/0372-01.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. Rafael FIGUEROA-SALAS, also known as Rafael Figaroa, also known as Jose F. Aviles, also known as Luis Gonzalez-Quinones, also known as Hector Quintero, also known as Hector Quintero-Aviles, also known as Luis Gonzalez, Appellant.
    No. 06-2676.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 5, 2007.
    Filed: Oct. 18, 2007.
    Laine T. Cardarella, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
    K. Michael Warner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    [UNPUBLISHED]
   PER CURIAM.

Rafael Figueroa-Salas appeals the 73-month prison sentence the district court imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after having been deported following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Figueroa-Salas’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 erred in sentencing Figueroa-Salas to 73 months in prison.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, and a sentence within the correctly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.2005); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving presumption). We conclude that Figueroa-Salas’s sentence is not unreasonable, as nothing in the record suggests the district court based the sentence on an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur).

Having reviewed the record 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 the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. 
      
      . The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.