Case ID: f-appx_355/html/0980-01.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. Adolfo VARGAS-VASQUEZ, also known as Jesus Vargas-Vasquez, Appellant.
    No. 08-2915.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 5, 2009.
    Filed: Nov. 16, 2009.
    
      Steven Northup Snyder, Sr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.
    Angela Lorene Pitts, Assistant, John B. Schisler, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Appellant.
    Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Adolfo Vargas-Vasquez appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court upon his guilty plea to illegally re-entering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), 6 U.S.C. § 202(3) & (4), and 6 U.S.C. § 557. On appeal, 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 the district court failed to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and gave undue consideration to Vargas-Vasquez’s criminal history.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-diseretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion). We find no procedural error in this case, see id. at 461 (describing procedural error), and we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Vargas-Vasquez’s criminal history and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2006).

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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.