Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02162/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Gustavo Rubio
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2162

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jose Gustavo Rubio, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 28, 2006

Filed: April 5, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Gustavo Rubio appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A), and 846, and to one count of criminal forfeiture. In a brief filed under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Rubio’s 168-month

prison sentence, imposed upon consideration of an advisory Guidelines imprisonment

Appellate Case: 05-2162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029481
-2-

range of 168-210 months, is unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that

Rubio should instead have been sentenced to the 120-month statutory minimum. 

We note that the sentence imposed comports with Rubio’s plea agreement and

the unobjected-to calculations in the presentence report. We have found nothing in

the record to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See United States

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

rise to presumption of reasonableness, which defendant must rebut), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Although Rubio had no prior convictions, the instant offense

involved a large quantity of methamphetamine, and the district court, having

considered the section 3553(a) factors, showed some leniency by sentencing Rubio

at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

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

of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029481