Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03464/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ignacio Carrera-Marino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3464

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ignacio Carrera-Marino, also known as *

Judas Lozano, also known as Chivo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 27, 2006

Filed: October 4, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ignacio Carrera-Marino (Marino) appeals the 120-month prison sentence

imposed by the district court1

 after Marino pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

and possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. On

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

Appellate Case: 05-3464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2006 Entry ID: 2096133
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Marino believes the sentence is

unreasonable.

Marino’s offense carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120

months’ imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Because Marino had more

than one criminal history point, he was ineligible for safety-valve relief from the

statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). Thus, Marino’s sentence

is not unreasonable because the district court had no authority to impose a lower

sentence. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only

authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes a motion for

substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief). 

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2006 Entry ID: 2096133