Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03198/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Medina-Viedma
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3198

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Juan Medina-Viedma, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2004

Filed: May 12, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Medina-Viedma (Medina-Viedma) appeals the 71-month sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation

following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

and (b)(2) (2000). Medina-Viedma’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.738 (1967).

Appellate Case: 03-3198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2004 Entry ID: 1766332 
-2-

On appeal, counsel argues the sentence imposed was too harsh and the district

court failed to state a reason for imposing a sentence at the top of the Guidelines

range. These arguments fail. Medina-Viedma’s sentence falls within 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2)’s 20-year maximum, it is within the appropriate Guidelines range, and

we will not review the sentence merely because it is at the top of the range, see United

States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992), and the district court was not

required to state its reasons for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the

Guidelines range (57 to 71 months), cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) (requiring sentencing

court to state reasons for imposing sentence at particular point within Guidelines

range where range exceeds 24 months).

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2004 Entry ID: 1766332