Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03201/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rafael Urbina-Hernandez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3201

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Rafael Urbina-Hernandez, * Southern District of Iowa.

* 

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2006

Filed: May 30, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Urbina-Hernandez (Hernandez) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the

United States after having been deported following a felony conviction, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). At sentencing the district court1

 refused to depart

downward from the applicable Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 48 months

in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that Hernandez’s sentence is unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 05-3201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2006 Entry ID: 2049936
-2-

Hernandez may not assign error based on the district court’s refusal to depart

at sentencing, because the court’s ruling was discretionary and not the result of a

mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart. See United States v. Morell,

429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005) (discretionary denial of downward departure is

unreviewable). Also, Hernandez has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness

that attaches to a sentence imposed within the applicable Guidelines range. See

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

range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of

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

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2006 Entry ID: 2049936