Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03619/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Robles
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. 06-3619

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Francisco Robles, also known as * District of Nebraska.

Juan Valle Cillo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 6, 2007

Filed: December 13, 2007 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Francisco Robles guilty of conspiring to distribute or possess with

intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court1

 sentenced him within the advisory

Guidelines range to 240 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On

appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381884
-2-

Counsel first argues that the evidence was insufficient because the

government’s trial witnesses lied. However, credibility determinations are the

province of the jury, making them virtually unreviewable on appeal. See United

States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 948 (8th Cir. 2006). Accepting all of the trial evidence

and inferences therefrom that support the verdict, as we must, we conclude that a

reasonable jury could have found that a conspiracy involving 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine mixture existed, Robles knew about it, and he knowingly became

a part of it. See United States v. Urkevich, 408 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005)

(standard of review and elements of offense).

Next, counsel argues that the 240-month prison sentence is unreasonable

because Robles was merely a drug user, not a dealer. This is the version of events that

Robles advanced in his testimony at trial and in his allocution at sentencing, but it is

clear that the district court disbelieved his story in favor of the government’s trial

evidence. We conclude he has not shown that the 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 the appropriate factors but committed

a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. See United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (categories of error under reasonableness review).

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

(1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2007 Entry ID: 3381884