Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01619/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chad Salcedo
Appellant
United States
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. 07-1619

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska 

* 

Chad Salcedo, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: May 21, 2008

Filed: May 27, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chad Salcedo appeals the prison sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5 grams

or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii),

and 846; and using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a

drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The court sentenced

Salcedo to consecutive prison terms of 87 months on the drug offense and 60 months

on the firearm offense, for a total of 147 months. His counsel has moved to withdraw

Appellate Case: 07-1619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2008 Entry ID: 3437483
-2-

and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that

Salcedo’s sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that Salcedo’s sentence is not unreasonable. Nothing in the record

indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an

improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors

when it imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence for Salcedo’s drug offense. See

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate

presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th

Cir. 2005) (reasonableness factors). Further, the consecutive 60-month sentence was

the statutory minimum for Salcedo’s firearm offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A),

(D); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting argument

that district court has discretion to determine whether ultimate sentence is reasonable

and to impose non-Guidelines sentence even when portion of sentence is result of

mandatory minimum sentence; United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), “does

not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences”).

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2008 Entry ID: 3437483