Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01951/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01951-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Canales-Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1951

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Fernando Canales-Mendoza

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison

____________

 Submitted: March 23, 2016

Filed: March 30, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Fernando Canales-Mendoza (Canales) guilty of distributing over

5 grams of actual methamphetamine, possessing with intent to distribute over 50

grams of actual methamphetamine, and conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. 

Appellate Case: 15-1951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Entry ID: 4383210 
The district court thereafter imposed concurrent sentences totaling 120 months in

1

prison--the mandatory statutoryminimum, which represented a one-month downward

variance fromthe Guidelines range--plus five years ofsupervised release. On appeal,

in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Canales’s counsel

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, and the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Canales

argues he was eligible for safety-valve relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

Following careful review, we conclude that the evidence establishing three

undercover buys of methamphetamine, with resale quantities involved, supported

Canales’s convictions. See United States v. Vore, 743 F.3d 1175, 1180-81 (8th Cir.

2014) (standard of review); United States v. Peeler, 779 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2015)

(conspiracy); United States v. Tomberlin, 130 F.3d 1318, 1319 (8th Cir. 1997)

(distribution). As to sentencing issues, Canales did not meet his burden to prove that

he qualified for safety-valve relief, given representations by both the government and

defense counsel that Canales did not engage in the necessary proffer, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f)(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a); United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th

Cir. 2000); and the reasonableness challenge to his statutoryminimumsentence fails,

see United States v. Vieth, 397 F.3d 615, 620 (8th Cir. 2005). 

After independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion

to withdraw is granted. 

______________________________

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, now retired.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Entry ID: 4383210