Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02890/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Jiminez-Villanueva
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. 06-2890

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Victor Jiminez-Villanueva, also known *

as Jose Luis Rodriguez-Velasquez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2007

Filed: December 26, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Victor Jiminez-Villanueva guilty of conspiring to distribute 500

grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the

district court1

 sentenced him within the advisory Guidelines range to 360 months in

prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons discussed below,

we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385568
-2-

Counsel first argues that, in classifying Jiminez-Villanueva as a career offender,

the district court erred in determining that he was the person who had committed two

prior felony drug offenses in California. We find no clear error. See United States v.

Sanchez-Garcia, 461 F.3d 939, 947 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The

probation officer who prepared the presentence report supplied the court with

photographs of the individual who was convicted of the prior felonies, which she

obtained from the relevant court staff and sheriff’s department personnel in California.

The court then compared Jiminez-Villanueva’s appearance in person to the

photographs and found that they matched. We have previously held that this is a

“sufficiently reliable method for resolving the factual dispute.” See id. at 948.

In light of this conclusion, we need not reach counsel’s second argument

regarding the district court’s drug-quantity finding because, as a career offender,

Jiminez-Villanueva’s offense level would be the same regardless of drug quantity.

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court

and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385568