Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02415/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02415-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Martinez-Chavez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2415

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Juan Martinez-Chavez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2010

Filed: May 5, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Juan Martinez-Chavez challenges the sentence

that the District Court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. MartinezChavez’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and has moved to withdraw. Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court

committed no procedural error in sentencing Martinez-Chavez and that the court

imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007) (explaining that in reviewing a sentence, the appellate court first ensures

Appellate Case: 09-2415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 3661592
-2-

that the district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard; if

the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a

presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.)

(noting that an abuse of discretion may occur when the court fails to consider a

relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight

to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits

a clear error of judgment in weighing them), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913 (2005).

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

have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2010 Entry ID: 3661592