Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03189/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03189-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Alavez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3189

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Oscar Alavez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 24, 2005

Filed: July 14, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Oscar Alavez appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846. Alavez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel questions the reasonableness of the

sentence, stating Alavez believes that his sentence is “extreme” and that the court

should have been allowed to sentence him below the Guidelines range. 

Appellate Case: 04-3189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928000
-2-

The district court indicated the sentence was based on its consideration of the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we cannot agree with Alavez that the

sentence is extreme or unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738,

764-66 (2005) (sentencing courts must consult Guidelines and take them into account

along with other § 3553(a) factors; § 3553(a) factors guide inquiry as appellate courts

review sentences to determine whether they are unreasonable); cf. United States v.

Jones, 2 F.3d 827, 828-29 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding 151-month sentence for conspiring

to distribute phencyclidine not “excessive”). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2005 Entry ID: 1928000