Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01430/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01430-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1430

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes, also *

known as Ruben Sandoval, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Ruben Murguia, also known as *

Thomas Johnson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 17, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes (Cerrantes) appeals the 96-month prison sentence

the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His counsel has moved to withdraw,

and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that

Appellate Case: 06-1430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268140
-2-

Cerrantes’s sentence--at the top of the advisory Guidelines range--is unreasonable.

In a pro se motion, Cerrantes moves for appointment of new counsel.

We cannot say that Cerrantes’s sentence was unreasonable. The court

specifically declined to impose a more lenient sentence because of Cerrantes’s history

and characteristics, namely, his troubling criminal history; and counsel has not

succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence

imposed within the advisory Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)

(sentencing factors); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.

2005) (relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and

whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to conclude that they support

finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.)

(sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears

burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

In his pro se motion Cerrantes appears to raise claims of an involuntary guilty

plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, neither of which is properly before us in

this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir.

2001); United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998). Further, having

carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly we affrim the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

deny Cerrantes’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2007 Entry ID: 3268140