Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01042/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rene Villareal-Duran
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1042

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Rene Villareal-Duran, also known as *

Duran, also known as Flaco, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2007

Filed: December 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rene Villareal-Duran pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following removal. See

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). His offense level was increased by 16 levels under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b) because he had previously been deported after a felony conviction for a

crime of violence. At sentencing, the district court1

 noted Villareal-Duran was

currently incarcerated on state weapons charges, and imposed an 87-month prison

term to run consecutively to the undischarged state term. On appeal, his counsel has

Appellate Case: 07-1042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380915
-2-

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

arguing that the sentence was too harsh and an abuse of discretion because VillarealDuran’s “prior criminal history and use of weapons”--the court’s stated reasons for

sentencing him at the top of the advisory Guidelines range--were fully accounted for

in the criminal history score and the 16-level increase, and because Villareal-Duran

had already served most of his state prison sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing

Villareal-Duran at the top of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate courts must review sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005)

(standard of review). The record reflects that the court considered only relevant

factors--including Villareal-Duran’s long criminal history and propensity for crimes

involving weapons--and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those

factors. See Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004 (addressing how sentencing court may abuse its

discretion). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the federal

sentence to be served consecutively to the state sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c),

p.s. (sentence “may be imposed to run . . . consecutively to the prior undischarged

term of imprisonment”).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Entry ID: 3380915