Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01337/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando Reyes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1337

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Armando Reyes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Armando Reyes pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess more than 50 kilograms

of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district

court1

 sentenced him at the top of the advisory Guidelines range to 87 months in

prison and 3 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

reasons discussed below, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1337 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999468
-2-

Counsel argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonable under the standard

of review announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). However, a

sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and we

conclude that Reyes has not satisfied his burden to rebut that presumption of

reasonableness. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005),

cert. denied, 2005 WL 3067440 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2005) (No. 05-7506). Of particular

relevance is his lengthy criminal history, including prior convictions for possessing

or trafficking escalating quantities of marijuana.

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1337 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999468