Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03033/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Madraso
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3033

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Raul Madraso, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2007

Filed: December 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raul Madraso pleaded guilty to possessing more than 50 grams of crack with

intent to distribute; his 1995 felony drug conviction increased his mandatory

minimum prison term to 20 years. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 851. The

district court1

 sentenced Madraso to 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised

release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385094
-2-

First, Madraso’s sentence is not unreasonable: 240 months was the statutory

minimum, and the district court had no authority to depart or vary downward because

the government did not move for a lower sentence based on substantial assistance and

Madraso did not qualify for safety-valve relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), (f); United

States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d

1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Second, Madraso’s prior felony conviction was properly

used to enhance his sentence. See United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 12, 14 (8th Cir.

1991) (no Double Jeopardy Clause violation). Third, it was within the government’s

discretion to file the sentence-enhancing section 851 information, absent any

allegation that the decision was based on an improper factor. See United States v.

LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 761-62 (1997). Finally, after reviewing the record

independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous

issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385094