Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02676/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02676-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Figueroa-Salas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2676

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Rafael Figueroa-Salas, also known as *

Rafael Figaroa, also known as Jose F. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Aviles, also known as Luis *

Gonzalez-Quinones, also known as *

Hector Quintero, also known as *

Hector Quintero-Aviles, also known as *

Luis Gonzalez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2007

Filed: October 18, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Figueroa-Salas appeals the 73-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after having been deported following

Appellate Case: 06-2676 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2007 Entry ID: 3363262
-2-

an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).

Figueroa-Salas’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in sentencing

Figueroa-Salas to 73 months in prison. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, and a sentence within the correctly

calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving presumption). We conclude that Figueroa-Salas’s

sentence is not unreasonable, as nothing in the record suggests the district court based

the sentence on an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to consider a relevant factor,

or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (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 affirm the district court’s judgment and

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant

about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2676 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2007 Entry ID: 3363262