Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01909/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01909-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Sanchez Adame
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1909

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jose Luis Sanchez Adame

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: January 15, 2015

 Filed: January 21, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jose Luis Sanchez Adame (Adame) challenges

his sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-1909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Entry ID: 4236082 
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture orsubstance containing methamphetamine,

and 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that Adame’s 120-month prison sentence, a sentence 

below the Guidelines imprisonment range of 188-235 months, is unreasonable. The

argument fails, because 120 months wasthe statutoryminimum, the shortestsentence

possible absent a government motion. See 21 U.S.C § 841(b)(1)(A); United States

v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review; statutorymandatory

minimum sentence was shortest sentence possible absent government motion, and

was not substantively unreasonable). To the extent Adame’s pro se brief asserts a

challenge to the district court’s application of an aggravating-role enhancement in

determining Adame’s Guidelines imprisonment range, the enhancement had no

bearing on his ultimate sentence. 

We have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Entry ID: 4236082