Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01334/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Rodriguez-Zuniga
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1334

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Francisco Rodriguez-Zuniga, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 19, 2005

Filed: December 21, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Rodriguez-Zuniga appeals his sentence imposed by the district court1

after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. In a brief filed under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Rodriguez-Zuniga’s

168-month prison sentence, imposed upon consideration of an advisory Guidelines

imprisonment range of 168-210 months and a 120-month statutory minimum, is

Appellate Case: 05-1334 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Entry ID: 1988281
-2-

unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Following careful review, we believe the sentence imposed by the district court

is not unreasonable. Although Rodriguez-Zuniga had no prior convictions and

cooperated promptly, the instant offense involved a large quantity of

methamphetamine, and Rodriguez-Zuniga admitted he had a managerial or

supervisory role in the conspiracy. The district court expressly demonstrated its

awareness of the section 3553(a) factors, and showed some leniency by sentencing

Rodriguez-Zuniga at the bottom of the stipulated-to advisory Guidelines range. See

United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption

of reasonableness), cert. denied, No. 05-7506, 2005 WL 3067440, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 12,

2005); cf. United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence

may be unreasonable if trial court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant

factor, or (3) considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors

committed clear error of judgment).

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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1334 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Entry ID: 1988281