Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02445/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mathias Pizano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2445

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Mathias Pizano, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2007

Filed: October 4, 2007

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Mathias Pizano guilty of conspiring to launder money, conspiring

to distribute cocaine and marijuana, making false statements to a financial institution,

and engaging in transactions in criminally derived property. We previously vacated

his sentence and remanded for the district court1

 to give further consideration to

applying an enhancement for sophisticated laundering under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3).

See United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546

U.S. 1204 (2006). On remand, the district court applied the enhancement and

Appellate Case: 06-2445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358848
-2-

sentenced Pizano below the resulting advisory Guidelines range to 420 months in

prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and he has filed a pro se

supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

First, it did not violate the Sixth Amendment for the district court to engage in

judicial fact-finding at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence within an

advisory Guidelines system. See United States v. Sandoval-Rodriguez, 452 F.3d 984,

990-91 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 600 (2006). Second, the district court

properly understood and complied with this court’s instructions to revisit the

sophisticated-laundering enhancement by applying the correct legal standard. See

Pizano, 421 F.3d at 733-34. Third, Pizano has not shown that his sentence is

unreasonable, i.e., that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or considered only the appropriate factors but committed a clear error of

judgment in weighing those factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004

(8th Cir. 2005). Finally, after reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we deny

Pizano’s motion for the appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358848