Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01956/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01956-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Antonio Castillo-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1956

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Marco Antonio Castillo-Ramirez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2007

Filed: June 13, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marco Castillo-Ramirez appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1

imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. Castillo-Ramirez’s counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

questioning the reasonableness of the sentence, which was at the low end of the

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. 

Appellate Case: 06-1956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3319001
-2-

We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. In determining the sentence, the

district court considered Castillo-Ramirez’s Guidelines imprisonment range, along

with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,

261 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review). Moreover, nothing

in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed

a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th

Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining

ways in which abuse of discretion may occur).

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

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3319001