Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04096/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Salome Gee Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4096

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Salome Gee Perez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 9, 2006

Filed: October 23, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Salome Gee Perez appeals the 100-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. His counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is

unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 05-4096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2006 Entry ID: 2102019
-2-

We disagree. In sentencing Perez within the undisputed Guidelines range, the

district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically noting

Perez’s mental health needs; and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the

sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005)

(appellate courts must review sentences for unreasonableness; sentencing courts must

take into account Guidelines and other § 3553(a) factors ); United States v. Tobacco,

428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be

unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have

received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,

or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in

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

within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant bears

burden to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2006 Entry ID: 2102019