Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04073/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04073-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Carlos Navarette-Benitez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4073

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Roberto Carlos Navarette-Benitez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2007

Filed: December 12, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Navarette-Benitez (Navarette-Benitez) appeals the concurrent 86-

month prison sentences the district court1

 imposed upon him after Navarette-Benitez

pled guilty to (1) knowingly transporting illegal aliens for commercial advantage and

private gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), and (2) reentering the United

States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). NavaretteBenitez’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in considering Navarette-Benitez’s

Appellate Case: 06-4073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2007 Entry ID: 3381426
-2-

prior convictions, for which he had already been punished, to assess a sentencing

enhancement and calculate his criminal history.

We conclude Navarette-Benitez waived any challenges to the district court’s

Guidelines calculations when he withdrew his objections to the presentence report at

the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th

Cir. 2002) (declining to review the district court’s findings related to sentencing

enhancement, drug quantity, and criminal history, even for plain error, where

defendant’s counsel withdrew any objections to the PSR at the sentencing hearing and

asked for a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range). To the extent counsel’s

brief may be construed as asserting a double jeopardy claim that was not waived at the

sentencing hearing, we reject this claim. See United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 12,

13-14 (8th Cir. 1991) (stating the use of prior crimes to enhance a sentence does not

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause).

We further conclude Navarette-Benitez’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment

range was correctly determined by the district court, and his within-Guidelines-range

sentence is not unreasonable because nothing in the record suggests the court

overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made

a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See Rita v. United States,

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness

for within-Guidelines-range sentences); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113

(8th Cir. 2006) (ruling a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively

reasonable); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing

factors to be considered when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness). After

reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues.

We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2007 Entry ID: 3381426