Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0710-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan C. POLANCO, Appellant.
    No. 08-2389.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 18, 2009.
    Filed: Jan. 14, 2010.
    Susan T. Lehr, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
    Jay Warner Mez, Mez Law Office, Council Bluffs, IA, for Appellant.
    Juan C. Polanco, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Juan Polanco appeals the mandatory minimum sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 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 Polanco’s sentence is unreasonable, and that the government should have filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance.

We find no merit in Polanco’s argument that the government should have filed a substantial-assistance motion. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 1135, 1138 (8th Cir.2008) (grounds on which district court may review government’s refusal to make substantial-assistance motion). Because the court lacked discretion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, we also find no merit in Polanco’s argument that the sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (only authority for court to depart below statutory minimum sentence is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial assistance or when defendant qualifies under safety-valve provision); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir.2006) (United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), “does not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences”).

After reviewing the record independently 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 the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari. 
      
      . The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.