Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0586-01.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. Nilo NORIEGA-MILLAN, Appellant.
    No. 10-1623.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 16, 2010.
    Filed: Aug. 19, 2010.
    Frederick James Dana, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
    Michael Dwyer, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Nilo Noriega-Millan, FCI Sheridan Inmate Mail, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Nilo Noriega-Millan pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 77 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, 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), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence and the court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Noriega-Millan has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that his counsel was ineffective and that the court did not adequately consider mitigating circumstances.

We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within applicable Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion). We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998).

Having 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 non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for tire Eastern District of Missouri.