Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02578/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ramiro R. Urbina
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Ramiro R. Urbina, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2007 

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ramiro Urbina challenges the district court’s1

 amended judgment resentencing

him to 360 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. In a prior decision, we

affirmed Urbina’s conviction, and remanded for resentencing in light of United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On this appeal, in a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Urbina’s counsel challenges the length of Urbina’s

prison term, and makes a conclusory allegation that Urbina has been the victim of

prosecutorial vindictiveness and selective law enforcement. In his pro se brief, Urbina

Appellate Case: 06-2578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3370940
-2-

contends that corruption pervaded every aspect of his criminal proceeding, and he

focuses on the injustice of the denial of his motion to suppress.

Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005). Moreover, the denial of Urbina’s motion to suppress was resolved against him

during his first appeal, and he may not revisit the suppression ruling or any aspect of

his conviction here. See Urbina, 431 F.3d at 309-10; United States v. Walterman, 408

F.3d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772, 776-77 (8th

Cir. 1999). 

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

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3370940