Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01891/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01891-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Cazarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1891

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Enrique Cazarez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 30, 2007

Filed: September 5, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Enrique Cazarez (Cazarez) appeals the 235-month sentence the district court1

imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.

Cazarez’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

bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

Appellate Case: 06-1891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Entry ID: 3348361
-2-

We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. The district court considered

Cazarez’s Guidelines imprisonment range, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. 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. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review); 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: 06-1891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Entry ID: 3348361