Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03179/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Cardona-Saldana
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3179

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Jose Cardona-Saldana, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 6, 2007

Filed: June 11, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Cardona-Saldana challenges the sentence of 5 years in prison and 4 years

of supervised release that the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to

distributing more than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw, and Cardona-Saldana has filed a pro se

supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318047
-2-

Counsel notes in his Anders brief that his client is dissatisfied with the length

of his sentence. The sentence, however, is the statutory minimum for the offense. See

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii); United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.

2006) (finding statutory minimum sentence not unreasonable).

Cardona-Saldana seems to argue in his pro se supplemental brief that his trial

counsel was ineffective, but such a claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir.

2006).

After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for

seeking rehearing or filing a cert petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318047