Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04226/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Ontiveros-Carreon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4226

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Juan Ontiveros-Carreon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2007

 Filed: February 5, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Ontiveros-Carreon pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1

sentenced Carreon to 50 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On

appeal, his attorney has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable because

Carreon had not committed any crimes other than illegally returning to the United

States.

Appellate Case: 05-4226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2007 Entry ID: 3275145
-2-

Upon review, we conclude that the reasonableness argument is without merit.

The district court noted Carreon’s history of illegally reentering the United States,

which can be construed as consideration of Carreon’s history and characteristics. See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence include nature

and circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant); United

States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is not

whether district court quoted or cited § 3553(a), but whether court actually considered

§ 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to

conclude that they support finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lamoreaux,

422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (nothing in § 3553(a) requires “robotic

incantations” that each factor was considered). Further, the 50-month sentence was

reasonable in light of not only Carreon’s history of repeatedly entering the United

States illegally, but also his prior violent felony conviction for aggravated indecent

liberties with a minor, which suggests a need to protect the public from further crimes.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (factors to be considered in imposing sentence include

need to protect public from further crimes of defendant). Finally, the 50-month prison

sentence was within the undisputed Guidelines range, and Carreon has not rebutted

the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d

1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable

if district court (1) failed to consider relevant fact that should have received significant

weight; (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considered

only appropriate factors, but in weighing those factors committed clear error of

judgment); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut

presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal upon our independent review

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district

court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2007 Entry ID: 3275145