Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01032/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor M. Alvaro-Reyes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1032

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Victor M. Alvaro-Reyes, also known *

as Cruz De Luna, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 20, 2006

Filed: February 2, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Alvaro-Reyes appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a brief

filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that AlvaroReyes’s sentence is excessive and unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 05-1032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2006 Entry ID: 2004929
-2-

To the extent counsel is raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to AlvaroReyes’s sentence, we conclude that the argument fails. See United States v. Collins,

340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences

that are grossly disproportionate to crime); cf. id. at 676, 679-80 (imposition of

mandatory life sentence for conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine was not cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment);

United States v. Jones, 2 F.3d 827, 828-29 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding 151-month

sentence for conspiring to distribute phencyclidine not “excessive”).

We further find that Alvaro-Reyes’s sentence--which was imposed at the

bottom of the Guidelines range, and well below the mandatory statutory minimum--is

not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-67 (2005)

(appellate courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness); United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2006 Entry ID: 2004929